TEfficiency:CheckConsistency Error

ROOT
1

Hello Experts,

I am trying to make a simple efficiency graph from dividing two histograms.
But I am getting following warnings and errors**
Then I checked explicitly the bin contents of both the histograms and I have following entries***
So, numerator is always smaller than denominator but even then I am getting these warnings and errors.
Could anybody please suggest any solution?
I am attaching my macro with this message.

Thanks and regards,
Arun.

ntuplePT.C (1.64 KB)

**
Info in TROOT::TEfficiency::CheckEntries: Histograms are not consistent: passed bin content > total bin content
Error in TROOT::TEfficiency::CheckConsistency: passed TEfficiency objects do not have consistent bin contents
Error in TGraphAsymmErrors::Divide: passed histograms are not consistent

Numerator = 1.00592e+06 Denominator = 1.10705e+06 Efficiency = 0.908653
Numerator = 157826 Denominator = 164223 Efficiency = 0.961047
Numerator = 6747 Denominator = 6887 Efficiency = 0.979672
Numerator = 602 Denominator = 616 Efficiency = 0.977273
Numerator = 120 Denominator = 121 Efficiency = 0.991736

2

Hi Arun,

Well, the macro without the data files doesn’t really help. Could you provide the data files (or a subset) in order to reproduce the problem?

Cheers, Bertrand.

3

Hi Bertrand,

Thanks for the reply and sorry for my late response.
Please find another macro attached but root file is slightly big to attach.
Find the root file here : arun-afs.web.cern.ch/arun-afs/D … _Tree.root
The numbers I am getting from this macro are**.
Which are again with Numerator always less than denominator but still I got the same error messages.
Please suggest.

Thanks and regards,
Arun.

**
Numerator = 995.199 Deominator = 1005.22 Efficiency = 0.990028
Numerator = 446.793 Deominator = 449.315 Efficiency = 0.994386
Numerator = 227.737 Deominator = 229.981 Efficiency = 0.990243
Numerator = 124.134 Deominator = 125.018 Efficiency = 0.992928
Numerator = 79.4041 Deominator = 80.186 Efficiency = 0.990249
Numerator = 48.4917 Deominator = 49.1353 Efficiency = 0.986901
Numerator = 30.5329 Deominator = 30.604 Efficiency = 0.997677
Numerator = 20.3411 Deominator = 20.5505 Efficiency = 0.989813
Numerator = 12.7744 Deominator = 12.8279 Efficiency = 0.995832
Numerator = 9.86596 Deominator = 9.92703 Efficiency = 0.993848
Numerator = 7.01339 Deominator = 7.08097 Efficiency = 0.990457
Numerator = 5.26696 Deominator = 5.34154 Efficiency = 0.986038
Numerator = 10.6412 Deominator = 10.7602 Efficiency = 0.988945
Numerator = 5.82717 Deominator = 6.06561 Efficiency = 0.960691
Numerator = 0.926628 Deominator = 1.05951 Efficiency = 0.874579

[quote=“bellenot”]Hi Arun,

Well, the macro without the data files doesn’t really help. Could you provide the data files (or a subset) in order to reproduce the problem?

Cheers, Bertrand.[/quote]
EffStudy_Plots_mass.C (3.03 KB)

4

Hi Arun,

I think the problem is that your histograms numMass and numMassnoDZ are filled with weights. The documentation for the CheckEntries method specifically says:

[quote]The following inequality has to be valid for each bin i: total.GetBinContent(i) >= pass.GetBinContent(i) and the histogram have to be filled with unit weights.[/quote] There is an option to accept the weighted histograms though, but I don’t really see how you can propagate this option calling the BayesDivide method…

5

Hi,

Could you please suggest any other method to compute these ratios with correct errors?

Thanks
Arun.

6

Hi,

Is there any solution on this issue? I also meet the same problem with ROOT 6.10/09. I checked that for each bin the bin content in the passed hist is smaller than the total hist, but I got the same error message. Both the passed and total histos are filled with weighted values.

Thanks,

Junquan Tao

7

Hi,
I had the same issue, but it works for me now in root version 6.10/04
I’m wondering if their are still limitations to using TEfficiency methods with weighted histograms?
Cheers, Mattias