\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[Update on MoM]{Update on MoM}
\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 --------------------------------------------
\begin{frame}\frametitle{S-wave study}
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{itemize}
\item In rush for Moriond we observed that some $F_s$ pulls are a bit over covering.
\item We had just limited number of toys so we stooped to investigate.
\item With more toys the pulls slighty over cover, but the impact on the angular observables is negligible.
\end{itemize}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
Bin $[\GeV^2]$ & mean & sigma \\ \hline \hline
$0.1 -0.98$ & $0.038 \pm 0.029$ & $0.918 \pm0.021$ \\ \hline
$1.1 -2 $ & $-0.024 \pm 0.031$ & $0.998 \pm 0.022$ \\ \hline
$2 - 3 $ & $-0.025 \pm 0.029$ & $0.942 \pm 0.021$ \\ \hline
$3 - 4 $ & $-0.069 \pm 0.030$ & $0.971 \pm 0.022$ \\ \hline
$4 - 5 $ & $0.062 \pm 0.030$ & $0.955 \pm 0.021$ \\ \hline
$5 - 6 $ & $0.081 \pm 0.032$ & $0.992 \pm 0.022$ \\ \hline
$6 - 7 $ & $-0.031 \pm 0.031$ & $0.992 \pm 0.022$ \\ \hline
$7 - 8 $ & $-0.054 \pm 0.030$ & $0.962 \pm 0.021$ \\ \hline
$11 - 11.75 $ & $0.002 \pm 0.030$ & $0.947 \pm 0.021$ \\ \hline
$11.75 - 12.5 $ & $-0.027 \pm 0.031$ & $0.979 \pm 0.022$ \\ \hline
$15 - 16 $ & $0.011 \pm 0.029$ & $0.933 \pm 0.021$ \\ \hline
$16 - 17 $ & $0.02 \pm 0.029$ & $0.929 \pm 0.020$ \\ \hline
$17 - 18 $ & $-0.054 \pm 0.030$ & $0.962 \pm 0.021$ \\ \hline
%$18 - 19 $ & $ -0.075 \pm 0.030$ & $0.964 \pm 0.021$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{footnotesize}
\end{frame}
\begin{frame}\frametitle{Correlations between $\color{white}{S_x}$ and $\color{white}{A_x}$, MC Toys}
\begin{small}
\begin{itemize}
\item We tested the correlation between the $S_i$ and CP different observables.
\item In toys correlation is negligible.
\end{itemize}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$q^2$ & $S_3~A_3$ & $S_4~A_4$& $S_5~A_5$& $S_6~A_6$& $S_7~A_7$& $S_8~A_8$& $S_9~A_9$ \\ \hline \hline
$0$ & $0.049$ & $-0.066$ & $-0.001$ & $0.011$ & $-0.034$ & $0.015$ & $0.022$ \\ \hline
$1$ & $0.029$ & $-0.047$ & $-0.003$ & $0.011$ & $-0.003$ & $0.017$ & $0.052$ \\
\hline
$2$ & $0.004$ & $-0.046$ & $0.026$ & $-0.022$ & $-0.010$ & $-0.036$ & $-0.032$ \\
\hline
$3$ & $0.079$ & $0.032$ & $0.035$ & $-0.028$ & $-0.025$ & $0.037$ & $0.027$ \\
\hline
$4$ & $-0.020$ & $0.074$ & $-0.001$ & $0.008$ & $-0.063$ & $-0.015$ & $0.037$ \\
\hline
$5$ & $-0.019$ & $-0.018$ & $-0.041$ & $0.001$ & $0.025$ & $0.015$ & $-0.014$ \\
\hline
$6$ & $0.000$ & $-0.008$ & $-0.021$ & $0.049$ & $-0.014$ & $-0.04$ & $-0.002$ \\ \hline
$7$ & $0.000$ & $-0.008$ & $-0.021$ & $0.049$ & $-0.014$ & $-0.04$ & $-0.002$ \\ \hline
$8$ & $-0.011$ & $-0.009$ & $-0.013$ & $-0.023$ & $0.047$ & $0.006$ & $-0.004$ \\
\hline
$9$ & $-0.009$ & $-0.015$ & $-0.008$ & $-0.009$ & $-0.010$ & $-0.050$ & $-0.029$ \\ \hline
$10$ & $0.030$ & $0.023$ & $0.084$ & $-0.049$ & $0.030$ & $0.002$ & $0.021$ \\ \hline
$11$ & $-0.016 $ & $0.006$ & $0.018$ & $-0.029$ & $0.034$ & $-0.049$ & $-0.039$ \\ \hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{small}
\end{frame}
\begin{frame}\frametitle{Systematics}
\begin{small}
\begin{itemize}
\item To access systematics due to unfolding procedure we use the higher($+2$) order acceptance correction function on high statistics MC.
\item I noticed that some of the weights ($1/\epsilon$) are super large ($>100$) or even negative which creates larger systematics(shifts the mean a lot).
\item Repeated this study rejecting this events, smaller systematics in both cases negligible.
\end{itemize}
\end{small}
\begin{tiny}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
$q^2$ & $F_l$ & $S_3$ & $S_4$ & $S_5$ & $S_6$ & $S_7$ & $S_8$ & $S_9$ \\ \hline
0 & 0.0022 & 0.005 & 0.0003 & 0.0077 & 0.0066 & 0.0080 & 0.0002 & 0.0032 \\
1 & 0.0048 & 0.001 & 0.0014 & 0.0051 & 0.0088 & 0.0036 & 0.0048 & 0.0003 \\
2 & 0.0004 & 0.0001 & 0.00013 & 0.0056 & 0.0046 & 0.0014 & 0.0003 & 0.0022 \\
3 & 0.0002 & 0.0012 & 0.0007 & 0.0017 & 0.0001 & 0.0016 & 0.0011 & 0.0021 \\
4 & 0.002 & 0.0004 & 0.0005 & 0.0015 & 0.0003 & 0.0009 & 0.0002 & 0.0010 \\
5 & 0.006 & 0.0011 & 0.0007 & 0.0026 & 0.0014 & 0.0016 & 0.0015 & 0.0004 \\
6 & 0.008 & 0.0019 & 0.0008 & 0.0024 & 0.0029 & 0.0033 & 0.0019 & 0.0000 \\
7 & 0.0062 & 0.0015 & 0.0002 & 0.0011 & 0.0036 & 0.0028 & 0.0016 & 0.0005 \\
8 & 0.0035 & 0.0037 & 0.0017 & 0.0046 & 0.0037 & 0.0005 & 0.0040 & 0.0040 \\
9 & 0.005 & 0.0001 & 0.0004 & 0.0010 & 0.0009 & 0.0050 & 0.0043 & 0.0033 \\
10 & 0.0011 & 0.0044 & 0.002 & 0.0060 & 0.0059 & 0.0101 & 0.0000 & 0.0012 \\
11 & 0.0021 & 0.0018 & 0.0001 & 0.0020 & 0.0004 & 0.0052 & 0.0082 & 0.0059 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{tiny}
\end{frame}
\end{document}
mchrzasz