A fairly common technique in experimental particle physics is event-by-event reweighting. The idea is that you have a sample of background-model events, either from a Monte Carlo simulation, or from a data-driven method. However, your background model doesn't describe the data well enough, so you go into a sideband region (where the signal you are looking for is neglegible), and look at a distribution $x$ which is incidental to the variables you are actually interested in $y$. Then you "fix" the model to fit the data in this distribution. For example, if the background is too low at $x=x_0$, all events with that value of $x$ get a weight slightly higher than 1.

The result is that the distribution of $x$ is now almost perfectly modeled, and variables correlated to $x$ are hopefully better modeled than before, and you have hopefully not overfitted your background to mask a possible signal.

Reweighting often seems like cheating to new users, but you get used to it quickly and stop worrying - and if used correctly it can be indeed a valuable tool. Now, I'm wondering if there is an accepted set of (thumb) rules when and how you are allowed to do reweighting.

Points I'd like clarified:

  • It seems $x$ and $y$ must not be too correlated. If $x = f(y)$ strictly, then it's cheating. If they are completely uncorrelated however, reweighting wrt. $x$ wouldn't change $y$.
  • Signal must be neglegible in the region where the reweighting factors are determined, but what is neglegible? A ratio of S/B = 1e-6 (before cuts) seems OK, but what if all signal events are in that region?
  • Sometimes the weights are determined bin-by-bin, $w,i = N_\mathrm{data,i}/N_\mathrm{BG,i}$. Sometimes you fit a function $w(x)$ to smooth out the weights. Any rules of thumb on how to determine the binning and/or the function?
  • How to calculate the systematic uncertainties from the procedure? Is it enough to vary the $w_i$ or the fit parameters by their uncertainties?

Maybe there is also just a good reference you can point me to.

  • $\begingroup$ I assume that you already understand how to apply the weights when processing the data and you just want to know how reliable the new weights are or are not, yes? $\endgroup$ – dmckee May 14 '13 at 19:07

Can you be more precise or give an example ? For example if you look at the number of events as a function of the invariant mass between 10GeV and 20GeV and expect a signal between 15GeV and 16GeV, you will choose a sideband between 10 and 13GeV for example, but what will be your x and y ?

And if you find that you must reweight by 1.5 between 10 and 13GeV, will you use the same factor between 15 and 16GeV ?

  • $\begingroup$ Say your interested in the dilepton invariant mass, so $y=M_{\ell\ell}$. You believe the angle between leptons is not well modeled, so you correct the $\varphi_{\ell\ell}$ MC distribution ($x$). You would do that in bins of $\varphi$, and you have one factor for each bin. One may determine the factor in a sideband, but applies it to all events. You seem to be thinking about normalizing to the Upsilon peak (~10 GeV), however in the case I mean the total normalization often doesn't change. (By the way, you're answer would better be a comment. We should move this discussion there.) $\endgroup$ – jdm May 12 '13 at 13:25
  • $\begingroup$ In fact I don't find the comment button for the first post. I don't understand what is your signal here, and indeed if there is no correlation between x and y why would we reweight x if it doesn't change what we want to measure : y ? $\endgroup$ – agemO May 12 '13 at 22:04
  • $\begingroup$ (Seems you need 50 reputition to comment...) I was asking about the most general case, since this has many uses: Fixing MC, estimating BGs from data, estimating trigger effects without simulating the trigger, .... You give every event a different weight, and make a certain distribution $y$ match perfectly - but have no predictive power there anymode, since data=BG per construction. You hope that in a somewhat correlated distribution $x$ (maybe with a different selection) you now have a better modelling of the BG, but you'll be able to discern the signal, in the simplest case a bump. $\endgroup$ – jdm May 13 '13 at 8:19
  • $\begingroup$ As you said I am new and its sound very weird, have you some reference with a complete example ? $\endgroup$ – agemO May 13 '13 at 9:28
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm, I'll write up something or look for a reference when I have time. $\endgroup$ – jdm May 13 '13 at 9:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.