Hi Urs,
is the hybrid done in the "SP4" way or in the new way I committed? The
difference in the hit and miss might make a difference in this respect
ciao
ric
______________________________________________________
Riccardo Faccini
Universita' "La Sapienza" & I.N.F.N. Roma
tel +39/06/49914457 Fax.: +39/06/4957697
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini
Univ. La Sapienza. 2,Ple Aldo Moro, I-00185 Roma Dipartimento di Fisica
"We need serenity to accept what we cannot change, courage to change what
we can and wisdom to distinguish between the two" [R. Kiplin, allegedly]
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Urs Langenegger wrote:
>
> Hoi,
>
> I counted KKbar pairs in the Xu system on an unbiased event sample,
> obtained directly from EvtGen. My apparent problem in the
> normalization turned out not to be a problem at all, but just physics.
> The rate for ssbar popping in the nonresonant component in the hybrid
> MC is different from the nonresonant MC.
>
> Here are the numbers:
>
> ssbar in % Dedicated MC Hybrid MC
> --------------------------------------------------
> B+ resonant 10.2 10.7
> B+ nonresonant 7.3 12.0
>
> B0 resonant 0.2 0.1
> B0 nonresonant 7.1 11.3
>
> "Dedicated" means that it's just the resonant (nonresonant) component,
> no mixture between the two. If I run the "dedicated" nonresonant MC
> with the same reweighting (for the non-resonant part) as the hybrid
> MC, the dedicated and hybrid MC have ssbar popping rates compatible
> within the stat. error.
>
> The resonant numbers agree with Daniele's DECAY.DEC calculation within
> the stat. error.
>
> Cheers,
> --U.
>
|