Print

Print


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
> >>
>