 |
 |
Sorry, it was late yesterday night. I was already one step ahead. Cheers, Heiko On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Kerstin Tackmann wrote: > > Hi Heiko, > > > I have not read the details of your posting yet. > > There is seomthing where we might have an inconsistency: > > I assume you are using the ratio other/vcb from the fit > > on data concezio has performed, right? > No, actually. I am performing non-unfolded 3-parameter fits > separately for Run1+2 with SP5 and Run4 with SP6. Wasn't > this what we talked about? > > > If so, one needs to determine this ratio separately for > > the SP5 and Sp6 period first, right? > That is what I did here effectively. I thought this is what > we talked about this morning. Would you like me to use these > numbers and perform 1-bin-unfolded fits on the two samples > as well? > > Cheers, > Kerstin > > > > > here are the results from the tests concerning the differences in the D** > > > modeling we talked about this morning. This is done with Concezio's recent > > > VVF tag and the correction factors are picked up from > > > corrratiosigpeakmx_newdatadepl.txt. The D** are moved into the "other" > > > component (-fitdss 1). > > > > > > Please find the plots here: > > > http://costard.lbl.gov/~kerstin/vubunf/testdss_Run12fitresults.eps > > > http://costard.lbl.gov/~kerstin/vubunf/testdss_Run4fitresults.eps > > > > > > By eye, the fits do look different and here are some numbers: > > > > > > **Fit on Run 1+2, SP5: > > > chi2/ndof = 1.64116 (for 7 dof) > > > ratio other/vcb = 0.296045 / 0.287339 = 1.03 +- 0.17 > > > (with errors: > > > Vcb comp = 0.287339 +- 0.0183957 > > > Oth comp = 0.296045 +- 0.0442523) > > > > > > **Fit on Run 4, SP6: > > > chi2/ndof = 1.90748 (for 7 dof) > > > ratio other/vcb = 0.117799 / 0.141224 = 0.83 +- 0.13 > > > (with errors: > > > Vcb comp = 0.141224 +- 0.00785652 > > > Oth comp = 0.117799 +- 0.0174853) > > > > > > where vcb is D and D*, other is D** and the non-sl bkgd. > > > > > > The differences might or might not be from the D** - roughly, in SP6 we > > > would think that the D** should smear down to smaller masses (since > > > some widths are larger and the minimum masses, with which D** can be > > > produced can be lower). We subtract less "other" and still the data > > > spectrum has fewer entries in the bins around 2GeV (and the D** do > > > smear this far down). > > > > > > > > > Here is another observation from these fits: > > > > > > Run 1+2, SP5, numbers of events in the first mX bin: > > > Data 1' bin = 393.016 +- 26.1089 > > > Vub 1' bin = 1809.31 +- 45.3825 > > > Vcb 1' bin = 482.67 +- 22.7482 > > > Oth 1' bin = 73.6857 +- 9.62637 > > > > > > Run 4, SP6, numbers of events in the first mX bin: > > > Data 1' bin = 436.967 +- 27.2767 > > > Vub 1' bin = 1528.4 +- 41.7351 > > > Vcb 1' bin = 1327.69 +- 37.7632 > > > Oth 1' bin = 186.534 +- 14.9827 > > > > > > after the mES fit... compare the number of data events (quite similar) > > > and the number of Vcb events (quite different). As far as I know there is > > > no SP5/SP6 weight on the generic MC. In the case that we think > > > efficiencies might be sensitive to the run period, this looks like a > > > potential problem, doesn't it? And taking Run 3 into account, this looks > > > even worse. I am confused - I thought we were supposed to have SP5 and SP6 > > > roughly in the ratio of Run1-3 to Run4. And if this is true before any > > > cuts and bkgd subtraction, it probably should not be vastly different > > > afterwards. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Kerstin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >