Hi Urs,
which chi^2 is the one your are showing here? I do not think that the
chi^2 of our mX fit where we lump the first big bin together is sensitive
enough to this.
If I were to take your numbers phase value, considering that in 2D the 68%
contours are deltaChi<2.25 [correct? I never get this right ...], we
exclude all the point with l_1<= -0.95, the bottom five ones in the plot.
>From the previous posting from Urs
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/lwgate/VUB-RECOIL/archives/vub-recoil.200306/Author/article-21.html
we would then discard
sf-e-11.dat -0.220 +0.74 0.0334033 +- 0.00394548
sf-e-13.dat -0.270 +0.73 0.0364401 +- 0.00426178
sf-e-14.dat -0.270 +0.51 0.0354744 +- 0.00415781
sf-e-15.dat -0.320 +0.69 0.0393289 +- 0.00456418
sf-e-01.dat -0.301 +0.67 0.0380874 +- 0.00443508
Form the previous posting from Urs, I produced a plot of the deltaChi^2 vs
the measured BrBr:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini/phys/vub/dchi2br.eps
The vertical line is the border of the current assigned error (17%) while
the horizontal line is what one would get with deltaChi<2.25. As you can
see we are not too off! caveats: we of course rely on one point having
a low chi^2 (the one at BRBR=0.020), I am not absolutely positive abput
the 2.25 and we need to do the test with the hybrid and the chi^2 from the
Mx distribution in several bins below 1.55 (unless it is not already done
as such)
ciao
ric
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Urs Langenegger wrote:
>
> Hoi,
>
> as a quick check I looked at the chi2 for the fits with CLEO's
> settings:
>
>
> lBar l1 chi2
> -------------------------------
> 0.480, -0.30, 5.658 // default
>
> 0.545, -0.34, 5.596 // 00
> 0.781, -1.13, 7.944 // 01
> 0.475, -0.13, 5.943 // 02
>
> 0.425, -0.12, 5.330 // 03
> 0.435, -0.16, 6.690 // 04
> 0.495, -0.34, 5.901 // 05
>
> 0.495, -0.16, 5.429 // 06
> 0.545, -0.47, 6.068 // 07
> 0.545, -0.26, 4.509 // 08
>
> 0.59, -0.62, 6.604 // 09
> 0.59, -0.34, 5.114 // 10
> 0.70, -0.95, 7.791 // 11
>
> 0.70, -0.69, 6.410 // 12
> 0.75, -1.08, 7.799 // 13
> 0.75, -0.95, 7.419 // 14
> 0.80, -1.2, 8.593 // 15
>
>
> For illustration, you can see the same here
>
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/061603/chi2.eps.gz
>
> Remember, this is all nonresonant MC only. We clearly get
> significantly worse chi2 when going "down" in lambda1.
>
> Cheers,
> --U.
>
>
|
