Vub measurement using recoil of fully reconstructed Bs


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
Daniele del Re <[log in to unmask]>
4 Feb 2005 12:29:44 -0800 (PST)Fri, 4 Feb 2005 12:29:44 -0800 (PST)
TEXT/PLAIN (49 lines)

Ciao Roberto,

 this page is very nice and helpful.

 Few comments:

 - lepton ID looks different but it should be somehow expected since we
   are not doing any killing
 - there is something really wrong with q2 that should be fixed in the
 - mm2 for B0 looks suspicious
 - track selection looks less efficient

 Then lepton ID and q2 distributions probably explain half of the

 I propose three other checks:

 1) recalculate the eff numbers with no cut on q2 and nle
 2) rerun the old signal production with no killing and no neutral
    smearing at all and compare again
 3) recalculate the table with a tight cut on the purity, i.e. intpur>0.5
    (here you are not fitting mes and the different combinatorics between the old and new
    Beta production can play a role).


> you will find in
> an update on non-resonant signal efficiency calculation with CM2 and CM1.
> Please have a look and let me know your comments.
> In addition, I realised that in the numbers that I provided and Virginia
> showed in, the
> labels (CM1, CM2) of table 1-A (non-resonant signal efficiency with CM1
> and CM2) have been inverted (mea culpa). Efficiencies are, in fact,
> consistently lower in CM2 than in CM1.
> All the best,
> Roberto
> PS: as Virginia, Concezio and myself are traveling to SLAC on Tuesday
> 15th, would it be possible to move our meeting to, say, the next day?