\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[$\PB \to \PKstar \Pmu \Pmu$ update]{$\PB \to \PKstar \Pmu \Pmu$ update}
\author{Marcin Chrz\k{a}szcz$^{1}$}
\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{Fast reminder}
\begin{columns}
\column{2.7in}
\begin{itemize}
\item We all had no idea how to propagate the bloody error.
\item I managed to caught Glen Cowan at CERN and he solved my problem ;) 
\end{itemize}
\column{2.3in}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{{P2_2.5_4.0}.pdf}

\end{columns}


\end{frame}



\begin{frame}\frametitle{Solution}
\begin{itemize}
\item The central value should be chosen as the one from central values.
\item Why?
\begin{itemize}
\item It maximals the LL
\end{itemize}
\item Why did we get two different answers?
\begin{itemize}
\item Errors are not Gaussian.
\item What I did is essentially a test if the errors are Gaussian.
\end{itemize}
\item So how to get the errors?
\begin{itemize}
\item Run FC.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}

\end{frame}
           
\begin{frame}\frametitle{One step forward...}
\begin{itemize}
\item Unfortunately Glen also said that for the FC pdf should be positive.
\item Errors are asymmetric $\to$ distributions do not follow a $\chi^2$ statistics.
\item We do not ensure that our pdf. is physical in the fit.
\end{itemize}

\end{frame}           
           
           
\begin{frame}\frametitle{This looks scary}
\includegraphics[width=0.96\textwidth]{{results_2.5_4.0Fit}.pdf}
\begin{itemize}
\item A bit high, $10\%$ of PHSP has a negative pdf.
\item MoM are batter $\to$ LOL
\end{itemize}


\end{frame}           
           
           
\begin{frame}\frametitle{Weighted fit}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{{results_2.5_4.0Fit}.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{{results_2.5_4.0Fit_w}.pdf}


\end{frame}           
           
                      
 \begin{frame}\frametitle{Weighted fit}
\begin{itemize}
\item Why this happend?
\begin{itemize}
\item Roofit checks that in each evaluation point the full pdf is positive.
\item In this bin we have 11 points in which signal pdf only is negative.
\item Parameters change a lot:
\end{itemize}
\begin{tabular}{| l| c| c |}
\hline
  ~ & $F_L$ & $S_6$ \\ \hline\hline
  Weighted fit~ & $0.8113$ & $-0.065$ \\ \hline
  Christoph fit & $0.877$ & $-0.0885$ \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\item So Christoph fits ensures that the full pdf is positive.
\item Roofit check that the single components are also positive.

\end{itemize}


\end{frame}           
                     
           
           
           
                    
\begin{frame}\frametitle{Solution general}
\begin{itemize}

%\item From my weighted fit the results in the fit change by $10\%$.

\item Add ''ghost events'' to the dataset.
\item Aka events that have extremely small weight~(can't bias the fit).
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}           
                        
       
              
\end{document}
