Combinations of measurements: obtain mean and errors

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the methodology for combining measurements of the Higgs mass obtained from two different channels (diphoton channel) by the ATLAS and CMS experiments. Participants explore the statistical analysis techniques used to derive the combined mean and associated errors, focusing on the discrepancies observed in systematic errors.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant details their approach to calculating the combined Higgs mass and errors using weights derived from a covariance matrix, noting a discrepancy in the systematic error compared to the published combined result.
  • Another participant suggests that a more sophisticated statistical analysis may be employed beyond simple Gaussian assumptions in the combination of results.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about how total results are derived from individual experiments, indicating a lack of clarity on the methodology used for combining results.
  • There is speculation that the experiments may have data with more significant figures for the errors than what is presented in the published results.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the exact methodology used for combining the measurements, and there are multiple competing views regarding the statistical techniques and assumptions involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential limitations in their understanding of the statistical methods used, particularly regarding the treatment of systematic errors and the correlation between measurements from different detectors.

ChrisVer
Science Advisor
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
465
I was looking at the attached picture, where it gives the Higgs Mass obtained from the two different channels from ATLAS and CMS.

Let's only talk about the diphoton channel : H\rightarrow \gamma \gamma
From the ATLAS the mass value is:
m_{Ah} =126.02 \pm 0.51
and the CMS:
m_{Ch} =124.70 \pm 0.34

Now it gives the combined result from ATLAS+CMS:
m_{ACh}=125.07 \pm 0.29

How can obtain the mean and error for the ATLAS+CMS?

I tried getting the weights w_i = \sum_j (C^{-1})_{ij} \Big/ \sum_{kl} (C^{-1})_{kl} with C the covariance matrix. Since they are different detectors they are not correlated and so the covariance matrix only has the variances on the diagonal. I obtain:
w_A \approx 3.84468/12.4952
w_C \approx 8.65052/12.4952
And I calculate the combined mass:
\bar{m}_{ACh} = \sum_i w_i m_{ih} = 125.106
I also tried to combine the errors. For the errors I used the statistical and systematic, given by:
syst= \sqrt{\sum_{ij} w_i w_j C_{ij}^{sys}}=\sqrt{w_A^2 0.27^2 + w_C^2 0.15^2}=0.133 \approx 0.13
stat= \sqrt{\sum_{i} w_i^2 C_{ii}^{stat}}=\sqrt{w_A^2 0.43^2 + w_C^2 0.31^2}=0.252 \approx 0.25
and \sigma_{tot} =\sqrt{(syst)^2+(stat)^2} =0.284 \approx 0.28

My result reads:
m_{h}^{(A+C,2\gamma)}(GeV) = 125.106 \pm 0.28 ( 0.25_{stat} \pm 0.13_{sys})
in comparison to
m_{h}^{(A+C,2\gamma)}(GeV) = 125.07 \pm 0.29 ( 0.25_{stat} \pm 0.14_{sys})
given ..The problem appears in the systematic error...
Any idea? Mine is that the measurements are considered somehow correlated in the systematics?
 

Attachments

  • b2.jpg
    b2.jpg
    39.4 KB · Views: 537
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I strongly suspect they are using a more sophisticated statistical analysis than simply assuming everything is Gaussian ...
 
I don't know, I have seen several times giving the results from experiment A, experiment B etc... and then giving the A+B+... total result in similar figures.
So I'm trying to understand how they get the total result.
 
ChrisVer said:
I don't know, I have seen several times giving the results from experiment A, experiment B etc... and then giving the A+B+... total result in similar figures.

Of course you have, things are often very close to Gaussian. If this was all there was to combining ATLAS and CMS data, we would not need to wait for a combined analysis, anyone with a pocket calculator could do it.
 
A guess: they had data to more significant figures (for the errors) than presented.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
28K
  • · Replies 175 ·
6
Replies
175
Views
28K