Hi Antonio, thanks a lot. The basic pattern stays the same and is still similar in both, enriched and depleted. This requires a more sophisticated re-weighting than just doing it for the D**lnu-part globally. Cheers, Heiko On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Antonio Petrella wrote: > Hi Heiko > the MX fit plots are available at: > > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~petrella/tmp/scra/Ibuzero_nofit_ip020/zero_nofit_ip020fitresults.eps > for the ENRICHED SAMPLE > > and at: > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~petrella/tmp/scra/Ibuzero_nofit_ip020_depl/zero_nofit_ip020_deplfitresults.eps > for the DEPLETED SAMPLE. > I have used all reweightings and set the D**+other/(D*lv+Dlv) ratio to > 0.428585. > > The third bin (mx=[1.9,2.2] GeV) changes significantly. > > Ciao > Antonio > > Heiko Lacker ha scritto: > > Hi Antonio, > > > > can we also have a look at the plots for the MX fits, > > both for signal-enriched and signal-depleted? > > > > I'm curious, after all re-weightings discussed so far, > > how the fit performs above 2 GeV. > > > > Cheers, > > Heiko > > > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Antonio Petrella wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> on the web page where I posted results of systematics due to > >> randomization of S/P: > >> > >> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~petrella/systsp.html > >> > >> you can see that this systematic error is not stable, for example when > >> cutting on integrated purtity. > >> > >> Now I'm trying to look at other results from these jobs to see if I can > >> find what makes this errors so large, but probably this is also due to > >> the S/P ratio and its error. > >> > >> For example if you look at the correction factors for IP > 0.50 > >> (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~petrella/tmp/SP_allrew/SPallweights/ip050_allrew/corrallwip050pol1.eps) > >> > >> you can see that the first bin has a large error (the exact value of the > >> correction factor for this bin is S/P = 5.67 +- 5.34) > >> > >> These numbers (they're on the spreadsheet at > >> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~petrella/tmp/SP_allrew/SPallweights/SoverPFullRew.sxc) > >> come from the double ratio of S/P on MC (0.74 +- 0.13) times the S/P > >> ratio on data depleted sample > >> > >> (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~petrella/tmp/SP_allrew/SPallweights/ip050_allrew/data_depl_AC_intp0.50_0.001.55.eps) > >> > >> On data depleted sample the signal component (fitted) is 291 +- 31 and > >> the background component (fitted) is 38 +- 35, so the error on the final > >> S/P ratio is driven by the background component on data depleted > >> sample... and cutting on purity (and having less background) will give > >> roughly higher errors on background component (at least the statistical > >> error). > >> > >> For the data depleted sample we get S +- dS and P +- dP as they come out > >> from the fit and then we compute the quantity S/P +- d(S/P). But these > >> errors are correlated, aren't they? > >> > >> ciao, > >> Antonio > >> >