Thanks Daniele,
this confirms what Urs had shown before.
I did not find the table you referred to. Can
you please specify this more clearly?
Also, did you include the smearing of tracks and neutrals
foe SP3 and SP4 as we discussed yesterday?
Thanks
Vera
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Vera G. Luth phone: 650 926 2702
SLAC-MS 95 fax: 650 926 2657
Stanford, CA 94309
USA e-mail: [log in to unmask]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Del Re, Daniele
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:28 AM
To: vub-recoil
Subject: GTVL track selection plots
Hi all,
I produced the comparison plots for the new track selection
you find the results in the page:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/GTVL_AS.html
and you can compare with the table in the page
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/disagree.html
for the old selection (sometimes the chisquare could be screwed up
because of bad mes fit with low stat)
My comments are:
- improvement in N charged and Qtot
- small improvement in mm2
- nneu same level of disagreement (expected)
- improvement in mxhad
- mxhadfit: same level of comparison
my final comment is that selection seems to be fine and actually
can improve the result. I am not sure that we are using the right
tables for the kinematic fit now. If not, results will be better in
the future once we will plug in the right tables.
I have another comment:
actually in the generic MC we don't have the same ratio Bch/B0
(2 for generic MC and 1.7 for data). This for sure affects the
Ncharged, qtot and Mx distributions. I will redo the comparison
with the right balance.
Daniele
|