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:
Urs Langenegger <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
06 Jun 2002 14:14:15 -0700 (PDT)Thu, 06 Jun 2002 14:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (102 lines)

Hoi, 

the following  is my  summary of the  decisions (to be)  taken, please
post corrections as followups.


Tracks/Photons
--------------
We focus on GTVL/AS, taking  care not to eliminate Ks daughters. CT/AS
is the obvious fallback solution.


Smearing
--------
30% increase in resolution for SP3 tracks.  No smearing for SP4 tracks
yet.   This is  based on  exclusive  reconstruction, may  (or not)  be
appropriate for inclusive Mx.

For  neutrals:  SP3: 2.5%  killing  and  1.5%  smearing.  On  SP4:  2%
smearing  and a shift  of -0.0075,  no killing.   That should  give at
least a first order approximation to the real resolutions.

Will solve the technical problem of (not) applying smearing today.


Data set
--------
Status quo, i.e. R8 for Run 1. 


MC sample
---------
Combine SP4  and SP3  for Run1.  Plots to be  posted on  the agreement
between the SP4RUN1 and SP4RUN2.


Mx cut
------
We all  agree that we need to  show the result when  varying the mxhad
cut.   We  discussed on  whether  or not  we  take  a decision  before
unblinding on how we choose  this: (1) significance of the result, (2)
overall goodness of fit. While avoiding  a bias, we also need to avoid
any model-dependence  answer present in the  MC. In the  end we agreed
that the  discussion is not yet  over, but that we  don't disagree too
strongly ...


Ks mass
-------
Status quo


K+ momentum 
-----------
Apply the momentum correction, show  the change, apply no lower cut on
the momentum.


Next Meeting
------------
Sometime Monday.  Conflicts between  Rome and PAC/AWG meeting. Need to
discuss the BAD  then. The review committee would like  to see the BAD
before  our next  review meeting,  and  would like  to have  it for  a
minimum of two days to digest it.

Cheers,
--U.


> From: Franz Muheim <[log in to unmask]>
> To: Urs Langenegger <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: Franz Muheim <[log in to unmask]>,
>  Daniele delRe <[log in to unmask]>,
>  Review of Vub Breco -- Franz Muheim <[log in to unmask]>,
>  Marie-Helene Schune <[log in to unmask]>,
>  Stephane Willocq <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Review starting up again
> Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 19:13:53 +0100 (BST)
> 
> Hoi Urs,
> 
> The review committee is in favour of getting ythe new BAD abefore the
> meeting. But we need a minimum fo two days, so that we can devote enough
> time for reading it.
> 
> 
> We are alos concerned that the final BAD will  be available before the
> last possible date 21. June. This allows for no slippage at all.
> 
> We really would prefer  to obtain the new  BAD  next Monday  with the aim
> of having a final document one week later, provided there are no problems.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 	
> 
> Franz




ATOM RSS1 RSS2