I remind all of you some useful links for today's discussion:
Scans and data-MC comparisons
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~asarti/recoil/update/
and Low Mx study crosschecks
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~asarti/recoil/mx_stu/
CU at YAM,
Alessio
______________________________________________________
Alessio Sarti Universita' & I.N.F.N. Ferrara
tel +39-0532-974328 Ferrara
roma +39-06-49914338
SLAC +001-650-926-2972
"... e a un Dio 'fatti il culo' non credere mai..."
(F. De Andre')
"He was turning over in his mind an intresting new concept in
Thau-dimensional physics which unified time, space, magnetism, gravity
and, for some reason, broccoli". (T. Pratchett: "Pyramids")
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Riccardo Faccini wrote:
> Hello folks,
> I run the data-MC agreement for the electrons and the muons separately on
> the control sample:
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini/phys/vub/dstarlnuel/-comp.html
> (electrons)
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini/phys/vub/dstarlnumu/-comp.html
> (muons)
>
> If anything the problem here is in the muon sample. Statistics is low, but
> unfortunately the control sample does not seem to indicate a problem in
> the electrons.
>
>
> I also wanted to point out that something must have changed recently,
> since muons (all B) used to measure (see BAD) 171+/-39 10^-4 while now
> they measure 162+/-35 while the electrons used to measure 195+/-36 and are
> now measureing 222+/-35.
>
> Are we sure we are not using the PID tables at anaQA level?
> ciao
> ric
>
|