VUB-RECOIL Archives

Vub measurement using recoil of fully reconstructed Bs

VUB-RECOIL@LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Daniele del Re <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
01 Jul 2002 16:09:17 -0700 (PDT)Mon, 01 Jul 2002 16:09:17 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (76 lines)

Hi Urs,

 I am noticing that in the stability plots you show the position of the
default value does not correspond to the default result (the only one
correct is the Mx scan). Are you sure you have always the default setting
in each fit?

 Daniele

>
> Hoi,
>
> in the following are a few links to  scans for B, B0 and B+. I use the
> HEAD of IslBrecoilUser  (with 'mixcorr 2', which I  presume is the new
> way). Furthermore,  I fit with  the files contained  in inputfiles.dat
> (in /nfs/farm/babar/AWG7/ISL/tmp/rootfitfiles/lastfiles/.).
>
> By default, I get
>
> B   BRBR = 0.0180181 +- 0.00430567(stat) +- 0.00123682(MC stat)
> B0  BRBR = 0.00404501 +- 0.00715335(stat) +- 0.00210959(MC stat)
> B+  BRBR = 0.0277028 +- 0.00544833(stat) +- 0.00179499(MC stat)
>
> which    is   a    bit   different    from   this    morning's   talk.
> ~ursl/root/ballfit/BALLMX_1.55-MM_0.500.blog  is the logfile  for this
> default.  Daniele, do you have a logfile against which I can diff? I'd
> be interested how the difference comes about.
>
>
> MX scan
> -------
> B   http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070102/BALLMX-stability.eps
> B0  http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070102/BNUMX-stability.eps
> B+  http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070102/BCHMX-stability.eps
>
> The  total is  remarkably stable,  but B0  and B+  are anti-correlated
> (nothing new).
>
>
> MM2 scan
> --------
> B   http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070102/BALLMM-stability.eps
> B0  http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070102/BNUMM-stability.eps
> B+  http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070102/BCHMM-stability.eps
>
> We have a stunning stability of the (B0) result when loosening the cut
> on mm2.
>
>
> P scan
> -------
> B   http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070102/BALLP-stability.eps
> B0  http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070102/BNUP-stability.eps
> B+  http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070102/BCHP-stability.eps
>
> The sum has  been more stable previously, the  fluctuations are driven
> by B+.   The B0 result is perfectly  stable raising the p*  cut to 1.7
> GeV.
>
> Q = -1 .. +1
> ------------
> B   BRBR = 0.0235617 +- 0.00463323(stat) +- 0.0012843(MC stat)
> B0  BRBR = 0.0134943 +- 0.00717454(stat) +- 0.00206(MC stat)
> B+  BRBR = 0.0350774 +- 0.00628954(stat) +- 0.0020162(MC stat)
>
> The instability does not improve compared to the default setting.
>
>
> Cheers,
> --U.
>




ATOM RSS1 RSS2