Choose timezone
Your profile timezone:
Powered by Indico
v3.3.3-pre
update (9 December, 15:30): I realized that my slides disappeared from the agenda, so I created another slot and uploaded them again
Minutes of 8 December 2020 meeting
===================================
First topic: Generalities on software (Roberta)
a) Several analysts interested in using the code, but now with other priorities
Anyway it is good to know the interest so that I can produce the next versions of the software taking into account specific needs of the analyses. So please contact me even if you are not ready for the statistical treatment.
b) Structure of the software provided so far:
For each mass hypothesis :
Step 1) prepares the model (background and signal) —> ws.root file with model
Step 2) takes as input ws.root and produce a .root file with the upper limit result (UL.root)
Step 3) takes as input all the UL.root files and plot the final Brazilian plot of the upper limit as a function of the mass hypothesis
Step 2 and 3 are the same for every kind of the analysis and quite user-friendly
Step 1 is very analysis-depending and at this stage should be created for each analysis (but the example contains already several features)
c) Update wrt the last meeting:
Step 3 added, both in the same macro and in a separate macro
It makes the tool more user friendly and gives the possibility to look at the results later, for example changing plotting features
d) Of course I will put the code on NA62FW but just because of privacy matters (when we will do that more NA62-specific), not because it depends on na62fw
——————————————————————
Evgueni: Suggestion: also the step1) can be user friendly, using as inputs numbers: the parameters of the polynomial and gaussian
Roberta:
-Sure, I plan to do that, but it will be limited to analyses with polynomial bkg and gaussian signal.
- By increasing the complexity of the software we can also make one user-friendly single compiled macro working properly for different analyses, but if we have only 3 analyses using the framework, each with different shapes, it is not worth it. This is why there should be some communication in order to plan the long term approach.
Evgueni: please put it on na62fw and compile it together with it, for two reasons:
1) as it is now, one should ask permissions
2) you don’t have to compile it
Roberta:
1) it is public for the world, if anyone has issues please let me know
2) compiling this code means doing (inside root):
.L macro.C+ (as it is explained in the comments and readme)
While compiling na62fw requires much more time.
As I told earlier I will put the code on NA62FW but not for these reasons
====================================================
Second topic: specific issue on K->mu + inv, in particular the NON 2-body decay, using MC
- Time ago I asked Evgueni what this sentence means in his NA62-20-09 note:
“Roberta’s shape analysis procedure is not able yet to account for correlated uncertainties among the mass bins”
(Discovered by chance because I was not contacted at the time)
- Yesterday evening Evgueni agreed to discuss this at today meeting
- In my slides 2 and 3 I asked if I understood well the background model, he said that my understanding is correct
- No answer to my slide 4.
Evgueni: the analysis is complete and this should be discussed in analysis meetings, not in the stats forum
Roberta: I am not talking about publications etc.. I want to understand the issue (and this regards physics and statistics, besides the fact that you mentioned my name in a document) also in view of the analysis of next data taking (and you contacted me yesterday to talk about this)