Hi Everybody,
as to the blinding I have the following suggestion:

  a) the fit should give not only the BR ratio, but also
     the number of events, Nu and Nsl
  b) if we want to be sure that we do not measure the quality of the result
     on the basis of the BR ratio, can we introduce a hidden efficiency
     factors.
     This was way can test the stability of the result with changing cuts
     and efficiency, without revealing the true value.

 Of course, if you want to make an effort you can figure out the hidden variable,
it wouldn't be too hard!

Ciao
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: Langenegger, Urs 
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 02:14 PM
To: vub-recoil
Subject: Summary of today's meeting



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