\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}
