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  January 2003

VUB-RECOIL January 2003

Subject:

Re: recoilDsys

From:

Alessio Sarti <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

20 Jan 2003 02:37:26 -0800 (PST)Mon, 20 Jan 2003 02:37:26 -0800 (PST)

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (48 lines)

> I am looking in recoilDsys.cc at
>
>   TRandom rndm(seed);
>   float xv0[6]={10.2,2.10,4.68,0.,0.63,0.23}; // existing measurements (order: all semilep, D,D*,nothing,D1*,D2*)
>   float xt0[6]={11.3,2.10,5.60,9.,0.56,0.37};// values from decay.dec
>   float xe0[6]={0.4,0.19,0.22,0.,0.10,0.08}; // errors on existing measurements
>
> from the  HEAD of  IBU. I think  that these hard-coded  numbers should
> tell about  B0 decays (compared to  the tables in  files which contain
> the D decay numbers), right?
>
> Can someone please explain these numbers?  In particular, I am puzzled
> about the following:
>
> o How do we get 11.3 from decay.dec? I checked and that should be 10.4
>   and it is (if you sum it up, e.g. in release 10.3.1a). The existing
>   measurements for the sl BR B->Xc l nu is 10.42, not 10.2 (PDG)

Hi,
the number quoted (11.3) comes from the generator level study made from
Ric months ago (if I do remember well): I remember that there were some
discrepancies (discussed in a MC session on generator parameters) btw the
values quoted in DECAY.DEC and the values found with jobs at generator
level.
I do not know how hard would be to rerun the study at generator level and
revalidate the numbers.....

>
> o I  would propose  to change 4.68  to 5.4\pm  0.22 since that  is the
>   latest and greatest average from the old LEP-HF working group ([not]
>   shown in Amsterdam, but implicit in the Vcb's shown there).  This is
>   most probably going to be the new PDG value for the 2003 web update.

I agree on that :) but, as Ric, I remember that in the past the
contribution from semileptonic systematics has never helped on B0
buisness.

Ciao,
Alessio

>
>
> Cheers,
> --U.
>


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