 |
 |
Hi Wolfgang, > first I have some comments to your numbers, that you are not really > comparing the correct things, but them I have some other numbers to > confirm your findings. > > So, you can not take the numbers of events in the BSemiExcl data skim to > calculate any ratios. The contain all data (well, mostly Bs but anyway). > You have to run them through BbkLumi and use the luminosity or number of > BB events, which is the same by a constant factor. > > And you are neglecting Run3, which might or might not affect the whole > thing. Anyway, here are the numbers run by run: Yes, I know, my numbers weren't meant to be more than a crude check. Thanks for getting the correct ones to look at! > > > generic: > > 1235(all/BsemiExcl) 1237(all/BSemiExcl) total ratio 1235/1237 > > run1: 24246000 1667945 28762000 1814045 53008000 0.8429 > run2: 119356000 8955315 120299826 7443054 239655826 0.9921 > run3: 67974000 4742604 61310000 3914416 129284000 1.1087 > run4: 332944433 27934200 336130399 24157489 669074832 0.9905 > > data: lumi B-counting AllEvents BSemiExcl > > run1: 19458.963 21181864 268587495 3982175 > run2: 60266.741 66441247 866976254 12802202 > run3: 31061.051 34076579 447426127 6688118 > run4: 99762.620 110107681 1512711646 23104133 > > > sum generic/2/data: (lumi) > > run1: 1.362 > run2: 1.987 > run3: 2.081 > run4: 3.353 > > So, there are two things. There is a minor dependency in the ratio > charged/neutrals by run period (~15%). There is a strong dependency > in the ratio generic/data by run period. > > So, we should weight by different run period. It is possible to > distinguish between run123 and run4 using the run number. I will see if > this is also possible for run1, run2 and run3. > > How about reweighting between charged and neutral Bs? Could/will be more > difficult. ;-) As Concezio said, VVF is already supposed to do this. We still have to look at the different numbers we are currently using for vub and vcb events, though . We have talked about this a while ago and this should be done once the mES fits are finalized, I think. Cheers, Kerstin > Cheers, > > Wolfgang > > Kerstin Tackmann wrote: > > Hi, > > > > here are some more numbers along these lines... > > > > I had a closer look at the number of events in the generic MC we are > > using. > > > > In the reduced ntuples (without any cuts, fits, ...) we have the following > > numbers of entries in the TTree: > > Run1+2 448821 > > Run4 1196783 > > > > the ratio of these is 2.667 > > > > looking at Roberto's tcl files, I find these numbers (the numbers of > > events we run over in production): > > Run1-2 19880359 > > Run4 52091689 > > > > and the ratio is 2.620. > > > > This looks to me as if our ratio of generic MC between SP5 and SP6 simply > > does not match the ratio of luminosities in the corresponding runs in > > data. I thought we are supposed to use SP5 and SP6 so that it corresponds > > to the lumi ratios.... > > > > in data I see in the tcl files > > Run1+2 16784377 > > Run4 23104133 > > > > and the ratio is 1.377. > > > > > > Are we not using all of the generic SP5? Or do we somehow use extra SP6? > > How did this come about? Could someone (Roberto, Wolfgang, ?) please > > clarify this? > > > > Kerstin > > > > > > > >> The interesting point is that the SP6/SP5 yield is different from > >> the ratio of Run4/Run1+2 luminosities, take e.g. your Vcb 1'bin numbers: > >> > >> SP6/SP5 = 1327.69/482.67 = 2.75 > >> Run4/Run1+2 = 100ifb/80ifb = 1.25 > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Wolfgang Menges > Queen Mary, University of London SLAC, MS 35 > Mile End Road 2575 Sand Hill Road > London, E1 4NS, UK Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA > +44 20 7882 3753 ++1 650 926 8503 > [log in to unmask] > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >