 |
 |
Hi Kerstin, can I have a look at your logfiles as well? One should compare your results for Run1+2 and Run4 with the fit on the entire Run1-4 period at http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~bozzi/scra/Ibufitdss1_nounf_newfixcount/ http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~bozzi/scra/Ibufitdss1_nounf_newfixcount/fitdss1_nounf_newfixcountfitresults.eps The other/vcb ratio on this sample is 0.55. I would expect the data yield to be higher than the sum of the two yields of your fits (393+436=829), whereas Data 1' bin = 725.552 +- 24.3418 The same is true for Vub, whereas Vcb and other seem to be OK: Vub 1' bin = 3219.71 +- 59.7701 Vcb 1' bin = 1926.92 +- 46.0334 Oth 1' bin = 305.603 +- 19.3678 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 Concerning the fitted components, the fit on the full sample gives: Vub comp = 0.105665 +- 0.00958735 Vcb comp = 0.185907 +- 0.00628845 Oth comp = 0.102527 +- 0.0113147 ratio other/vcb = 0.551496, which is smaller than both ratios of your fit. The Chi Square of the Fit (per dof) is 4.31296 NDOF = 7 At this point I am puzzled, and tempted to drop SP5 completely since it seems that the effect due to D** is bigger than any detector-conditions effect. Or we could have a other/vcb ratio which depends on run period (not easy to implement in VVF), or fit the run periods and combine the results (we lose some statistical power due to the mES fits on data). Any opinions? Concezio. Il giorno mar, 18-07-2006 alle 16:04 -0700, Kerstin Tackmann ha scritto: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >