CAF Attack Results since Nov-20-06
NEW (Feb 7) TF's made with FIXED HERWIG and nLoose=0
- John's runs, Feb. 8, 50 evts/PE, 2500 PEs.
event-by-event normalization, uncorrelated
propagators. No Pt(ttbar) integration
A. N_loose=0, no aceptance
Mass (GeV) Bias (GeV) Range (GeV) Pull width
---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
160.0 1.60 1.90 1.145
180.0 1.10 2.10 1.163
200.0 1.20 2.35 1.186
B. N_loose=0, acceptance
Mass (GeV) Bias (GeV) Range (GeV) Pull width
---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
160.0 0.70 1.95 1.219
180.0 0.40 2.10 1.177
200.0 0.60 2.47 1.243
COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE RUNS: the pulls went from 1.054 to 1.116, the
other quantities did not change
Pt(TTBAR) Integration results. No improvements!!
- John's runs, Feb. 8, 50 evts/PE, 2500 PEs
no acceptance, event-by-event normalization, uncorrelated
propagators. N_tight=4. 5x5 grid on Pt(ttbar).
A. N_loose>0.Pt(ttbar) integration centered at the HEPG value
Mass (GeV) Bias (GeV) Range (GeV) Pull width
---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
160.0 -0.90 3.00 1.445
180.0 -2.00 3.20 1.398
200.0 -1.50 4.15 1.555
B. N_loose>0.Pt(ttbar) integration centered at pt(ttbar)=0
Mass (GeV) Bias (GeV) Range (GeV) Pull width
---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
160.0 -1.40 2.75 1.355
180.0 -1.80 3.30 1.439
200.0 -1.90 4.15 1.595
NOTE: CAF ATTACKS JAN. 26 AND 27 HAVE PROBLEM WITH INTERFACE FILE
- John's runs, Jan. 27. 50 evts/PE, 2500 PEs
no acceptance, event-by-event normalization, uncorrelated
propagators. N_tight=4. 5x5 (?) grid on Pt(ttbar)
A. N_loose=0, Pt(ttbar) integration centered at the HEPG value
Mass (GeV) Bias (GeV) Range (GeV) Pull width
---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
160.0 1.00 1.90 1.078
180.0 1.00 2.05 1.039
200.0 1.50 2.50 1.097
B. N_loose>0, Pt(ttbar) integration centered at HEPG value
Mass (GeV) Bias (GeV) Range (GeV) Pull width
---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
160.0 0.20 2.80 1.311
180.0 -1.60 3.40 1.420
200.0 -0.90 4.25 1.580
Comment: the N_loose>0 results are much worse
C. N_loose=0, Pt(ttbar) integration centered at 0
Mass (GeV) Bias (GeV) Range (GeV) Pull width
---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
160.0 1.00 1.95 1.099
180.0 0.70 2.10 1.038
200.0 0.80 2.50 1.095
D. N_loose>0, Pt(ttbar) integration centered at 0
Mass (GeV) Bias (GeV) Range (GeV) Pull width
---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
160.0 -0.10 2.85 1.321
180.0 -1.20 3.35 1.394
200.0 -1.15 4.15 1.534
COMMENT ON THESE RUNS:
It appears that using the HEPG value for pt(ttbar) or using zero, does
not make any difference. For the N_loose>0, I would expect an improvement.
- John's results of Jan-26-06
John finds no difference between running with a 7 point grid and a
5x5 grid for the pt(ttbar) integration.
- John's results of Jan-26- 1 am. 50 evts/PE, 2500 PEs
Acceptance (from Adam, M_t dependent), event-by-event normalization,
uncorrelated propagators. N_tight=4. 7 points PT(ttbar) integration.
A. N_loose=0, acceptance correction, no pt integration
Mass (GeV) Bias (GeV) Range (GeV) Pull width
---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
160.0 0.20 2.05 1.141
180.0 0.10 2.05 1.050
200.0 0.50 2.55 1.157
B. N_loose=0, acceptance correction, pt integration
Mass (GeV) Bias (GeV) Range (GeV) Pull width
---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
160.0 0.05 1.90 1.101
180.0 -0.20 2.15 1.086
200.0 0.00 2.45 1.125
C. N_Loose>0, acceptance correction, no pt integration
Mass (GeV) Bias (GeV) Range (GeV) Pull width
---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
160.0 -1.40 2.70 1.322
180.0 -2.50 3.25 1.414
200.0 -1.90 3.70 1.492
D. N_Loose>0, acceptance correction, pt integration
Mass (GeV) Bias (GeV) Range (GeV) Pull width
---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
160.0 -1.50 2.85 1.403
180.0 -2.00 3.27 1.434
200.0 -1.90 4.25 1.630
COMMENTS: the integration on Pt(ttbar) seems to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING,
IF NOT MAKING THINGS WORSE!!
CAF Attack Results average-vs-correlated propagator
- John's results, Jan.- 15-06. HEPG runs done by Jason (2500).
Normalization, acceptance, 2500 PEs, 50 events/ PE.
A. Average propagator:
Mass (GeV) Bias (GeV) Range (GeV) Pull width
---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
160.0 0.60 1.80 1.077
180.0 0.30 2.20 1.099
200.0 0.20 2.40 1.058
B> Correlated propagator:
Mass (GeV) Bias (GeV) Range (GeV) Pull width
---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
160.0 0.80 1.85 1.076
180.0 0.30 2.15 1.063
200.0 -0.50 2.45 1.081
- John's results, Jan.16-06
FULL SIM, no loose jets.
A. Average propagator, no acceptance correction
Mass (GeV) Bias (GeV) Range (GeV) Pull width
---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
160.0 1.30 2.00 1.125
180.0 1.00 2.07 1.054
200.0 1.20 2.50 1.100
B. Average propagator, acceptance
Mass (GeV) Bias (GeV) Range (GeV) Pull width
---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
160.0 0.20 2.05 1.141
180.0 0.10 2.05 1.050
200.0 0.50 2.55 1.157
C. Correlated propagator, no acceptance:
Mass (GeV) Bias (GeV) Range (GeV) Pull width
---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
160.0 1.60 1.90 1.063
180.0 0.70 2.05 1.015
200.0 0.90 2.40 1.062
D. Correlated propagator, acceptance:
Mass (GeV) Bias (GeV) Range (GeV) Pull width
---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
160.0 0.40 1.95 1.1-6
180.0 -0.20 2.10 1.061
200.0 0.10 2.55 1.129
COMMENTS: the results for no-acceptance included and acceptance
included are clearly different. The results for the average propagator
and correlated propagator runs are very similar.