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  April 2003

VUB-RECOIL April 2003

Subject:

more on ratio BR(Bch)/BR(B0)

From:

Daniele del Re <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

01 Apr 2003 06:22:58 -0800 (PST)Tue, 01 Apr 2003 06:22:58 -0800 (PST)

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (65 lines)


Hi all,

 I studied a bit more in detail the result of the ratio BR(Bch)/BR(B0) on
generic MC.

 With the new statistics (~220 fb-1) I get

 total  BRBR = 0.013032  +- 0.00109235
 B0     BRBR = 0.0133296 +- 0.00181513
 Bch    BRBR = 0.0128752 +- 0.00137274

 ratio = 0.96591 +- 0.167051


 Since a possible problem could be due to crossfeed I performed two
checks:

 - fit the ratio adding a cut on the integrated purity (only in the fitted
sample, not in the models)

 - fit the ratio changing the relative statistics NB0/NBch. If there is a
strong effect of the crossfeed it should show up with this test.

 Here the results

cut on purity
-------------

no cut      ratio = 0.96591 +- 0.167051
intpur>.3   ratio = 0.896821 +- 0.161344
intpur>.4   ratio = 0.901798 +- 0.180097
intpur>.5   ratio = 0.941965 +- 0.19304
intpur>.6   ratio = 0.999017 +- 0.227691
intpur>.7   ratio = 1.35907 +- 0.387477
intpur>.8   ratio = 1.37365 +- 0.548486


different relative B0-Bch statistics
------------------------------------

B0 1/5      ratio = 0.692619 +- 0.24179
B0 1/2      ratio = 1.09417 +- 0.291523
B0 4/5      ratio = 0.995098 +- 0.185956

Bch 1/5     ratio = 1.41696 +- 0.361108
Bch 1/2     ratio = 1.16043 +- 0.225162
Bch 4/5     ratio = 1.00219 +- 0.176967


I don't see any problem in these numbers.

I should be stressed that the statistics is very limited in order to say
that the fit is not biased.

I am also running a test, varying the generated ratio but, again, with
this statistics we cannot say too much.


 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