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:
Antonio Petrella <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
27 Sep 2006 12:44:50 +0200Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:44:50 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (76 lines)
Hi Heiko
the MX fit plots are available at:


http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~petrella/tmp/scra/Ibuzero_nofit_ip020/zero_nofit_ip020fitresults.eps
for the ENRICHED SAMPLE

and at:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~petrella/tmp/scra/Ibuzero_nofit_ip020_depl/zero_nofit_ip020_deplfitresults.eps
for the DEPLETED SAMPLE.
I have used all reweightings and set the D**+other/(D*lv+Dlv) ratio to 
0.428585.

The third bin  (mx=[1.9,2.2] GeV) changes significantly.

Ciao
  Antonio

Heiko Lacker ha scritto:
> Hi Antonio,
> 
> can we also have a look at the plots for the MX fits, 
> both for signal-enriched and signal-depleted?
> 
> I'm curious, after all re-weightings discussed so far,
> how the fit performs above 2 GeV.
> 
> Cheers,
> Heiko
> 
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Antonio Petrella wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> on the web page where I posted results of systematics due to 
>> randomization of S/P:
>>
>> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~petrella/systsp.html
>>
>> you can see that this systematic error is not stable, for example when 
>> cutting on integrated purtity.
>>
>> Now I'm trying to look at other results from these jobs to see if I can 
>> find what makes this errors so large, but probably this is also due to 
>> the S/P ratio and its error.
>>
>> For example if you look at the correction factors for IP > 0.50
>> (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~petrella/tmp/SP_allrew/SPallweights/ip050_allrew/corrallwip050pol1.eps)
>>
>> you can see that the first bin has a large error (the exact value of the 
>> correction factor for this bin is S/P = 5.67 +- 5.34)
>>
>> These numbers (they're on the spreadsheet at
>> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~petrella/tmp/SP_allrew/SPallweights/SoverPFullRew.sxc)
>> come from the double ratio of S/P on MC (0.74 +- 0.13) times the S/P 
>> ratio on data depleted sample
>>
>> (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~petrella/tmp/SP_allrew/SPallweights/ip050_allrew/data_depl_AC_intp0.50_0.001.55.eps)
>>
>> On data depleted sample the signal component (fitted) is 291 +- 31 and 
>> the background component (fitted) is 38 +- 35, so the error on the final 
>> S/P ratio is driven by the background component on data depleted 
>> sample... and cutting on purity (and having less background) will give 
>> roughly higher errors on background component (at least the statistical 
>> error).
>>
>> For the data depleted sample we get S +- dS and P +- dP as they come out 
>> from the fit and then we compute the quantity S/P +- d(S/P). But these 
>> errors are correlated, aren't they?
>>
>> ciao,
>>    Antonio
>>



ATOM RSS1 RSS2