Hi Urs,
are you using the latest chains? My understanding was that on those chains
(after a set of bug fixes) the blind result was more like 0.019, while
here you still find 0.02
ciao
ric
______________________________________________________
Riccardo Faccini
U.C. San Diego, Universita' "La Sapienza" & I.N.F.N. Roma
tel +39/06/49914338 http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini
Univ. La Sapienza. 2,Ple Aldo Moro, I-00100 Roma
Dipartimento di Fisica
"If you can dream--and not make dreams your master" (R. Kipling)
On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Urs Langenegger wrote:
>
> Hoi,
>
> the following contains scans for mm2 and mx with the parametrization
> of the theoretical error as currently implemented in the fit
> (i.e. determined with generated MX). The study cutting on the fitted
> Mx will follow:
>
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/062002/mx-stability.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/062002/mm-stability.eps
>
> The mx scan does not reveal anything new compared to Daniele's plot,
> except that the theoretical error is added in quadrature (this is the
> outer error bars, the inner error bars are just the statistical
> error).
>
> The numbers for the points are contained in
>
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/062002/mx-stability.txt
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/062002/mm-stability.txt
>
> Here, the errors in parentheses are the combined absolute and relative
> errors (on BRBR), respectively.
>
> Cheers,
> --U.
>
>
|