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  February 2003

VUB-RECOIL February 2003

Subject:

(mb,a) theory errors - inspired by BAD220

From:

Oliver Buchmueller <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

18 Feb 2003 18:26:26 -0800 (PST)Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:26:26 -0800 (PST)

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (43 lines)


Hi All,

concerning the determination of the (mb,a) theory related
errors (that currently seems to be the dominant uncertainty
in the Vub determination) I would like to point you to
BAD 220 (b->sg exclusive measurement).
Since the BSG BR fraction measurement has to deal with
the same input parameters for the model (mb, lambda_1)
than Vub the procedure to determine the systematic theory
error described in this note can also be applied for the Vub
measurement (see page > 189).

Here are short summary of the steps:

a) take mb (or Lambda_bar) obtained from
   the bsg energy spectrum
   (Important Remark: <Eg> is the only known variable which
   gives direct access to mb without depending on lambda_1!!!!)

b) Input mb in the Vub model and fit for the Number of Vub events
   AND the second parameter a (or lambda_1).
   -> this should be straightforward since you already vary
      the model parameters - now you just have to interface
      it to your fit

c) vary the error on mb by +-1 Sigma and repeat the full extraction
   -> this will automatically account for all correlations
      between mb and lamdda_1 and the systematic error on Vub
      would even be a real 68% CL (given that the input errors are 68%)

After a long discussion with Helmut(referee of BAD220), the bsg group
and myself that procedure was found to be the most "honest" and
most meaningful determination of the mb,lamda_1 theory uncertainties.
Hence it was used for ICHEP02.

Maybe thats helpful.

Oliver



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