Hee
analysis status report
Genova team - 25/2/02
-
Hidden bug
in HZHA
-
MC/DATA tables for E
and U
samples assuming L=8.928 pb-1
for 203.7E, L=66.300 pb-1
for 205E, L=79.938 pb-1
for 206.5E, L=7.418 pb-1
for 208E and L=59.637 pb-1
for 206.5U.
-
q qbar MC: no "empty" event should be preselected, event
weight unchanged (in stripped samples less events and less x-s) => no
need to reanalyze
-
4fCC/4fNC BUG: test of new samples
- quoted numbers are for L=80 pb-1
- easy to rescale
4f CC |
Preselection |
Input |
old sample |
142.2 |
0.463+- 0.020 |
new sample |
142.5 |
0.439+-0.030 |
difference (new-old) |
|
-0.024+-0.036 |
|
|
|
4f NC |
Preselection |
Input |
old sample |
21.13 |
4.287+-0.076 |
new sample |
20.98 |
4.225+-0.067 |
difference (new-old) |
|
-0.062+-0.101 |
Differences well
within statistical errors and negligible w.r.t. systematic errors (see
later)
-
SYSTEMATIC ERRORS on background
- same procedure as last years, i.e. find changes in the cuts such as to
get at preselection in MC the same fraction above cut as in real data,
then look at final (input level) selection changing one by one the original
cuts with the modified ones and add in quadrature the differences. This
provides +0.35, -0.52 (central value 10.47+-0.11stat)
for the E sample. BUT
for one variable (min. el./jet isol. angle) the modified value coincides
with the original one (80)
- since the max el./jet isol. angle had a 5% change, the same was forced
in this case, with a final estimate +0.40,
-0.54.
The same procedure for the U sample provides +0.12 -0.14
(central value 3.71+-0.06stat)
-
SYSTEMATIC ERRORS on efficiencies:
the same procedure (using the same modified cuts) has been applied to all
signal samples => a lot of numbers [4(E)+1(U) energies * 19 masses]: you
won't read them but in case... E
table U table - typical values are in
the range 0.5 to 1.5%.
CONCLUSIONS:
-
ingredients for final paper should
be ready
-
check/adds/mods of the text to be
done