LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for VUB-RECOIL Archives


VUB-RECOIL Archives

VUB-RECOIL Archives


VUB-RECOIL@LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

VUB-RECOIL Home

VUB-RECOIL Home

VUB-RECOIL  July 2002

VUB-RECOIL July 2002

Subject:

Re: generic+crossfeed. here a large effect!

From:

Daniele del Re <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

07 Jul 2002 15:05:39 -0700 (PDT)Sun, 07 Jul 2002 15:05:39 -0700 (PDT)

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (193 lines)


more on this item.

Here you find the comparison plots of the background subtracted
distributions (the plot onthe right you find in the usual ps file for the
fit result).

In these plots:

- top left is B0+Bch:
- top right is B0:
- bottom left is Bch:


** COMPARISON Q0 - Q1, cocktail as model:

  http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/nicecompold.ps

** COMPARISON Q0 - Q1, generic+crossfeed as model:

  http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/nicecomp.ps


from these two you can learn that the comparison improve when you use the
generic MC (look at B0's)



** COMPARISON Q0, cocktail - generic+crossfeed as model:

  http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/nicecompcockgenech0.ps

** COMPARISON Q0, cocktail - generic+crossfeed as model:

  http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/nicecompcockgenech101.ps


here you see that for Q0 the result of the subtraction is basically
unchanged. Large differences for Q1 (B0's).


I also refitted the sample Abs(Q)==1 (uncorrelated sample with repect to
Q=0) on the using gene+crossfeed MC as a model:


B0 BRBR = 0.0265976 +- 0.0235882(stat) +- 0.0129815(MC stat)
Bch BRBR = 0.0444071 +- 0.0240263(stat) +- 0.0115915(MC stat)
All BRBR = 0.0333972 +- 0.0168482(stat) +- 0.0084564(MC stat)

then

B0 1 sigma up
Bch < .8 sigma up
total 1 sigma up

before (cocktail as a model) was more then two sigmas.

I start being convinced that we have no problem here.


Daniele



On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Daniele del Re wrote:

>
>
> Hi all,
>
> finally something that has a large difference between Q0 and Q1.
> I did again the test using the generic MC and generic+crossfeed as a
> model.
> I discovered that the difference we observed between generic MC and
> cocktail 0.0169 -> 0.0140 was DUE TO THE RATIO eps(u)sl/eps(c)sl
> calcualted in the fit that was affected by a fit on a very dirt
> sample (generic MC with no cut applied).
> This introduces a large bias in this factor when we fitted the
> generic MC (~20% up since the signal before the lepton cut is
> overestimated for b->clnu)
>
> Then these are the results (correcting this effect):
>
>
> generic MC:
> ==========
>
> Q0
> --
>
> B0 BRBR = 0.00383 +- 0.00703(stat)
> Bch BRBR = 0.02544 +- 0.00541(stat)
> All BRBR = 0.01649 +- 0.00428(stat)
>
> Q1
> --
>
> B0 BRBR = 0.01244 +- 0.00773(stat)
> Bch BRBR = 0.03057 +- 0.00635(stat)
> All BRBR = 0.02277 +- 0.00487(stat)
>
>
> generic + crossfeed MC
> ======================
>
> Q0
> --
>
> B0 BRBR = 0.00290 +- 0.00705(stat)
> Bch BRBR = 0.02644 +- 0.00539(stat)
> All BRBR = 0.01700 +- 0.00429(stat)
>
> Q1
> --
>
> B0 BRBR = 0.00655 +- 0.00789(stat)
> Bch BRBR = 0.03102 +- 0.00635(stat)
> All BRBR = 0.02054 +- 0.00492(stat)
>
>
> The usage of generic + crossfeed MC as a very large impact on Q1!!!
> especially on B0s.
>
>
> I summarize
>
> Q0 default gene + crossfeed
> --
>
> B0
> BRBR 0.0029+-0.0071 0.0024+-0.0071
>
> chi2 0.90232 1.24949
>
> Bch
> BRBR 0.0264+-0.0054 0.0264+-0.0054
>
> chi2 1.37897 1.72423
>
> All
> BRBR 0.0170+-0.0043 0.0170+-0.0043
>
> chi2 1.03306 1.56583
>
>
>
> Q1 default gene + crossfeed
> --
>
> B0
> BRBR 0.00142+-0.0076 0.0066+-0.0079
>
> chi2 1.04791 1.56062
>
> Bch
>
> BRBR 0.0336+-0.0063 0.0310+-0.0064
>
> chi2 2.58364 1.9846
>
> All
> BRBR 0.0253+-0.0048 0.02054+-0.0049
>
> chi2 1.56594 0.866931
>
>
>
> The disagreement Q0 - Q1 now becomes (using the difference in
> quadrature):
>
> B0 -1.2 sigmas
>
> Bch -1.3 sigmas
>
>
> I don't quote the difference in the total (B0+Bch) since it could be
> wrong due to a not correct ratio B0/Bch (BTW is -1.5 sigmas)
>
>
> Let's think about this very carefully.
>
>
> Daniele
>
>
>
>
>
>



Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2010
December 2009
August 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager

Privacy Notice, Security Notice and Terms of Use