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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

VUB-RECOIL Home

VUB-RECOIL Home

VUB-RECOIL  November 2002

VUB-RECOIL November 2002

Subject:

the scan and the theory

From:

Daniele del Re <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

24 Nov 2002 21:33:40 -0800 (PST)Sun, 24 Nov 2002 21:33:40 -0800 (PST)

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (66 lines)


Hi all,

 I studied a bit more in detail the problem of the instability
of the result as a function of the hadronic mass cut.

 As you know, our biggest systematics is the theoretical one
and it is very dependent on the Mx cut itself.
 This implies that it can introduce a slope in the Mx scan.

 I tried to reweight the MC model shifting the theoretical parameters
mb and a in order to check the impact on this scan. The hope
is that the scan is just telling us that mb and a are not the ones
in the MC model.

 In

 http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/theoscan.html

 you find the scans in many configurations.

 The first five tables show the data for the following configurations:

 - default
 - mb = 4.65 (-0.15) , a = 1.290 (default)
 - mb = 4.95 (+0.15) , a = 1.290 (default)
 - mb = 4.60 (-0.20) , a = 1.290 (default)
 - mb = 4.80 (default) , a = 3.1 (+2.31)
 - mb = 4.80 (default) , a = 0.91 (-0;19)

 As you can notice, moving mb down and a up, fixs part of the discrepancy
at low Mx low values.


 As a crosscheck, I verified the impact on the generic MC, that is shown
in the second set of tables.
(in order to reproduce the effect on data, you should imagine to flip the
slopes and the shifts since here I am reweighting the model not the
fitted sample)


 My comments:

 1) moving the theoretical paramenters (down mb and up a, but in
particular a) recovers part of the problem at low Mx.

 2) generic MC is able to reproduce the effect at low Mx.

 3) generic MC shows that the B0s are more sensitive to this systematics.
Probably this is due to the slightly better S/B??

 4) our measurement is so clean and we have so many events that we are
sensitive to these theoretical parameters. We can start thinking about
fitting a and mb.

 5) I am a bit less worried about this slope now


 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