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:
Edward Hill <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
7 Jan 2005 15:25:07 -0800Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:25:07 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (109 lines)

I'm looking at the newest info from PDG - either the 2004 book or the webpage.

For ex, from PDG 04: D0->Kpi 3.80+/-0.09 %
(this is what we see in VubAnalysis/ddecay.table)

but in RecoilAnalysis/ddecay.table it is 3.83+/-0.09 %

On Friday 07 January 2005 03:22 pm, Kerstin Tackmann allegedly wrote:
> Hi Ed,
>
> which PDG are you using to check the values in ddecay.table?
> I know this is not exactly the answer to your question, but we have been
> using the ddecay.table in VirVubFitter. This should have the PDG2003
> values in it, Ric updated this last March. And I am not aware of any more
> recent update.
>
> Cheers,
> Kerstin
>
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Edward Hill wrote:
> > After checking - I'm going to commit changes to VubAnalysis b/c
> > RecoilAnalysis' version of recoilDSys is the properly maintained one - so
> > i'm just copying it over.
> >
> > However, it looks like the ddecay.table file from VubAnalysis has the
> > correct BR values from PDG and the version in RecoilAnalysis doesn't. 
> > Can another pair of eyes quickly double check this assertation - i'd like
> > to know whether i'm taking crazy pills or not.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ed
> >
> > On Friday 07 January 2005 10:44 am, Edward Hill allegedly wrote:
> > > So, it seems pretty clear that the RecoilAnalysis version is the
> > > well-maintained version.  I can't even recall doing a migration or in
> > > which direction i migrated it.  I assume from VubAna->RecoilAna for the
> > > introduction of the recoil analysis base class.
> > > I'll go through the 2 and bring each up to speed with the other.
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> > > On Friday 07 January 2005 10:31 am, Kerstin Tackmann allegedly wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I made some changes to recoilDSys in RecoilAnalysis last February,
> > > > but I did not touch the recoilDSys in VubAnalysis.
> > > > I posted a short description of the changes is posted here:
> > > > http://babar-hn.slac.stanford.edu:5090/HyperNews/get/semi_lept_decays
> > > >/4.h tm l
> > > >
> > > > But since it refers to the AWG meeting before the posting, it might
> > > > be a little unclear. I made three types of changes to the code:
> > > >
> > > > 1) I changed the weights that were used for the B->Xclnu BFs
> > > > according to the values of the AWG-reweighting page. Since the
> > > > uncertainties there were asymmetric I implemented an asymmetric
> > > > Gaussian in the Brandomize function for the variation of the BFs.
> > > >
> > > > 2) I had problems with how the random numbers were thrown, since it
> > > > used the time to set the seed and when jobs would start too shortly
> > > > after another they would give me the same results (which is obviously
> > > > not what we want). So I changed it so you could pass a number that
> > > > determined how the seed got set (in pratice it throws random numbers
> > > > for 10*the number you pass it and uses the random numbers it throws
> > > > after throwing these 10*x away, and accordingly for the D weights).
> > > > So you would call VirVubFitter with -Sys i, i=3...52 or so and were
> > > > sure to get different random numbers thrown per job (and I made
> > > > checks the distributions of the weights looks ok doing it this way
> > > > and to not have some strange behavior).
> > > >
> > > > 3) This is for the unfolding, so we could write out the weights into
> > > > files and read them in later again when running in our binning.
> > > >
> > > > This version was tagged KT022304. I do not know if Concezio's changes
> > > > were made after this.
> > > >
> > > > Kerstin
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Concezio Bozzi wrote:
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > in VirVubFitter we have been using RecoilAnalysis/recoilDSys, but
> > > > > we also did (more than 1 year ago) detailed checks with
> > > > > VubAnalysis/recoilDSys, which I believe gave consistent results.
> > > > > At the moment we cannot check the details in our logbooks (both
> > > > > Virginia and I are not in Ferrara), we'll do that on Monday.
> > > > > Ciao, Concezio.
> > > > >
> > > > > Daniele del Re wrote:
> > > > > >>yes,  in  principle  you  are right.   However,
> > > > > >> VubAnalysis/fitNtp.cc includes the  other version (the one  in
> > > > > >> VubAnalysis). So  it would be nice to  have THE person  to know
> > > > > >> sign off with  a better CL  than "I presume". Are the
> > > > > >> differences between the two versions understood?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >VirVubFitter results were consistent with the fitNtp ones (right
> > > > > >Virginia) and fitNtp is not used since ages.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >This is what I know. I am noticing that the VubAnalysis version
> > > > > > was the result of the migration done by Ed. Probably Ed himself
> > > > > > knows if there was an original large difference between the two.
> > > > > > After the first commit there have been just two versions with
> > > > > > fixes by Kerstin and Concezio.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Daniele




ATOM RSS1 RSS2