interesting... in all these tests B0 results and slopes seem to be more
stable than B+...
Daniele
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Urs Langenegger wrote:
>
> Hoi,
>
> in
>
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/121602
>
> you can find a table with BRBR's and links to scans for various
> alternative cut scenarios. Note: in the scans I show the full errors
> (on the left) and the quadratic difference to the default (on the
> right). Nothing fancy, I am only trying to observe trends, not to
> minizime the #sigma.
>
> Observations:
>
> o Applying a lower cut on mm2 cures some of the low-mX behavior. The
> B+ are perfect afterwards (one might argue that they are not in the
> default, though they are obviously quite good already). The B0 are
> corrected into the right direction, but not enough.
>
> o Requiring a lower cut on mm2 *always* lowers BRBR (I played this
> game only for the loosened upper cut at mm2 < 1.0).
>
> o Loosening the mm2 cut to be mm2 < 1.0 drives BRBR(B+) down
>
> o Fitting without depletion slightly increases the error, but does
> not change much else.
>
> o Q1 drives all BRBR up, most notably with mm2 < 0.5. Once a cut of
> -1 < mm2 < 1 is applied, the situation is stable.
>
> o The best stability for B0 (and B+) is for
> fit-22: -1.0 < mm2 < 1.0 .and. -1 <= qtot <= 1
> fit-32: no depl .and. mm2 < 1.0 .and. -1 <= qtot <= 1
> The latter has a quite remarkable consistency between B0 and B+.
>
> So this is a third way (after smearing and a variation) how to
> systematically alter the mX scan behavior.
>
>
> Cheers,
> --U.
>
>
|