- \documentclass[xcolor=svgnames]{beamer}
- \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
- \usepackage[english]{babel}
- \usepackage{polski}
- %\usepackage{amssymb,amsmath}
- %\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
- %\usepackage{amsmath}
- %\newcommand\abs[1]{\left|#1\right|}
- \usepackage{amsmath}
- \newcommand\abs[1]{\left|#1\right|}
- \usepackage{hepnicenames}
- \usepackage{hepunits}
- \usepackage{color}
- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
- \definecolor{mygreen}{cmyk}{0.82,0.11,1,0.25}
- \usetheme{Sybila}
- \title[Weekend updates]{Weekend updates}
- \author{Marcin Chrz\k{a}szcz$^{1}$, Nicola Serra$^{1}$}
- \institute{$^1$~University of Zurich}
- \date{\today}
- \begin{document}
- % --------------------------- SLIDE --------------------------------------------
- \frame[plain]{\titlepage}
- \author{Marcin Chrz\k{a}szcz{~}}
- \institute{(UZH)}
- % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- % --------------------------- SLIDE --------------------------------------------
- \section{Background studies}
- \begin{frame}\frametitle{Weight correlation with $\color{white}{\textbf{B}}$ mass}
- \begin{itemize}
- \item First thing that come to my mind was the different treatment of background in different methods.
- \item Performed a Pearson correlation check for low and high recoil on data sidebands.
- \end{itemize}
- \begin{columns}
- \column{2.5in}
- \center{$0.1~\GeV^2 q^2 < 8 \GeV^2$}\\
- \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{corr/plot_highrecoil.png}
- \column{2.5in}
- \center{$15~\GeV^2 q^2 < 19 \GeV^2$}\\
- \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{corr/plot_lowrecoil.png}
- \end{columns}
- \begin{itemize}
- \item Clear correlation between mass and unfolding weight.
- \item Impact on the analysis has to be studied.
- \end{itemize}
- \end{frame}
- \begin{frame}\frametitle{First bin problem}
- \begin{itemize}
- \item I already mentioned this and no one is worried so this is my final calling to everyone caution.
- \item All right side band events ($M_{\PB}>5350\MeV$) are comming from 2012. There are no background events in 2011 data!
- \item Optimistic calculation:
- \begin{itemize}
- \item 21 events in $3~\invfb$, 7 events peer $\invfb$.
- \item Probability to expect 7 events and observed 0 is $0.0009$ which corresponds to $3.3~\sigma$ significance!
- \item Taking into account look elsewhere effect(14 bins): $14\times0.0009= 0.0126$, this is like $2.4~\sigma$.
- \end{itemize}
- \end{itemize}
- \center{\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{53314186647.png}}
- \end{frame}
- \begin{frame}\frametitle{Comparison of Chebyshev fit}
- \begin{itemize}
- \item Since I wanted to compare more in detail the difference between left and right sideband I fitted a Chebyshev to them separately.
- \item All plots: \texttt{wget --user=lhcb --password=2924 \url{http://nz17-p1.ifj.edu.pl/work_public/LHCb/Kst_mumu/Bkg_studies/plots.tar.gz}}
- \item Over all I see a tension.
- \end{itemize}
- \begin{columns}
- \column{2.5in}
- \center{Left: \\ \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{bkg/BLIND_Q2_0_1_0_98_left.png}}
- \column{2.5in}
- \center{Right: \\ \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{bkg/BLIND_Q2_0_1_0_98_right.png}}
- \end{columns}
- \end{frame}
- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
- \begin{frame}\frametitle{Background conclusions}
- To conclude:
- \begin{itemize}
- \item There are to many hints of something being wrong.
- \item I know some of you will say:"Statistically insignificant", but if you add them up you are looking at something that is starting to be significant.
- \end{itemize}
- \end{frame}
- \end{document}