1. Miscellaneous W mass studies Comment on V.1681 result Muon Error test Different Estimators for the 4q channel CR and Cones

2. 21 AprilA.Moutoussi Cern V1.681 semileptonic results updated One faulty CN at 189 discovered Differences at 189: All energies Electron -23 -6 MeV Muon +8 +1 MeV Tau +4 +3 MeV CN has been redone (also V1.69 is OK)

3. 21 AprilA.Moutoussi Cern Muon Error test Roberto had suggested to “move” MC distribution of 2C error to match the data Applied shift of 5% - 9 MeV shift (-19MeV if ChiProb>0.01)_

4. 21 AprilA.Moutoussi Cern Different Estimators for 4quark 3d. Two options: Error from 5C fit (err5c) Neural Net output (NN) Two considerations : Expected error on Mw Expected error DMw (durham-cone)_ Err5c 52 52 NN 51 51 (all energies combined, errors using 4f, for the extreme cone R=0.4) ~2% gain both for Mw and DMw

5. 21 AprilA.Moutoussi Cern What do Err5c and NN know about Mw and its resolution. (Mtrue1+Mtrue2-2*M5C) Resolution For 3 Err5c and 3 NN bins

6. 21 AprilA.Moutoussi Cern Mw Resolution: Mean and Width vs Err5C vs NN

7. 21 AprilA.Moutoussi Cern Cones and CR Compare Expected Chis2 sensitivity for two Pairing options Allowing pairing algorithm choice (FreePair) Keeping pairing as in Durham Reco(XPair) Expected sensitivity for SK1 Systematics?

8. 21 AprilA.Moutoussi Cern Cones and CR -details- V1.69 (correct treatment of ISR events) NN used as 3d 500K CC03 events used to calculate expected errors and correlations Bakgrounds used in all MC tests (expected errors, correlations, etc) Minos errors Correlations calculated every year, averaged and the spread taken as their error

9. 21 AprilA.Moutoussi Cern Cones and CR –FreePair vs Xpair- Sensitivity determined by CR shift from Std to Cone Error on difference Free Pair Xpair Dmw e.g ki=2,ki=100 219, 55 219, 55 Correlation 0.646 ±0.012 0.696 ± 0.012 Error on Dmw 51 48 ~6% gain for Dmw for the same CR shift expected

10. 21 AprilA.Moutoussi Cern Cones and CR -X sensitivity vs R- Without systematics, tighest cone has largest sensitivity (as in all previous CN versions!)

11. 21 AprilA.Moutoussi Cern Cones and CR -C for FPair vs XPair- Xpair FreePair Expected X for For the tightest cone R=0.4 Xpair more sensitive Higher sensitivity increases with Ki Point where X increases by one after more K points included! But ~1.4

12. 21 AprilA.Moutoussi Cern Cones and CR - Data and Xpair- Data Flat.. no sign of CR

13. 21 AprilA.Moutoussi Cern Cones and CR - and systematics?- One can/should check the obvious: Jetset-Herwig, Ariadne, vs Cone (eg plots on www) FJN-FJ vs cone (eg FJ-Standard OLD CN version) or/and some more.. eg Jet Mass Data-Mc vs Cone

14. 13-2-2002 Ann Moutoussi, CERN Actual Masses: Cone Definition & Jet Energy Corrections Eflow Eflow-Eo Eflow Eflow-Eo Cone Pcut 100MeV -100MeV FEBRUARY 2002 NOW

15. 21 AprilA.Moutoussi Cern PS: the W masses v.1682 (Std EFLOW) V1.682 V1.681 Electron 80.632 ±.079 80.542 ±.087 Muon... Tau 80.341 ±.110 80.342 ±.122 4Quark 80.513 ±.049 80.476 ±.054

16. 21 AprilA.Moutoussi Cern Cones and CR -systematics- Bose-Einstein vs Cone -32MeV But BEall is disfavoured, idea was to “extrapolate” l and DMw And we use Cone variation?..

17. 21 AprilA.Moutoussi Cern Cones and CR - and systematics?- All depends how we will evaluate them for standard analysis anyway. Might influence the choice of Cut used for CR? (it did in the past..)

18. 21 AprilA.Moutoussi Cern Cones and CR -conclusions- Some sensitivity improvements by using NN and Xpair Tightest cone has largest sensitivity (without systematics), limit of k~1.4 Data flat Need to define how we add systematics

19. 21 AprilA.Moutoussi Cern Cones and CR - and systematics?- 0.100

20. 21 AprilA.Moutoussi Cern Cones and CR - and systematics?-