Hi,
the phone details for tomorrow (Friday 27th) at 8:30 are:
Dial-In : | 973-321-2000
Passcode/Conference Code: | 426322
you can find a self consistent version of the bad on q^2 in
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini/phys/vub/conf_paper.ps
The basic conclusions are :
a) there is no improvement on q^2 once you introduce the
analysis cuts
b) the error can at most be brough down at the 15% level going to
Mx<1.86
c) the results for are stable as a function of q^2 although there
is a dependency on mX if we go too high (we know this well...)
I am not still completely positive with the consistency with the rest of
the world.
conclusion c) is consistent with BAD 540 fig 52
figure 4 is consistent with with fig 64 in BAD 540 provided the
latter is done on he hybrid (I cannot find it). It is to be noted that the
error on eps_mx is a factor 2 smaller on hybrid than on nonresonant only
figure 4 is inconsistent with the paper of bauer, ligeti luke
(hep-ex 0107074)
For istance q^2 > 11 and mX>1.5 we get an efficiency of 25% with a
relative error of 12% while they get an efficiency of 15% with a relative
error of 27%.
comments, suggestions and further checks are welcome
ciao
ric
|