Hi Kerstin,
you are right that minuscule is a strong statement (I had not redone the
sum) but anyhow  a consistent fraction of modes is not considered (and
most of them contain Ks and K+)> The RC asked us to consider also this
error and we thought it was a good idea even if there is a ~50%
redundance. If you wish you could rescale the individual BF and thorugh
randomply also the inclusive ones and rescale only the missing BF, but I
do not think it is worthwhile unless you show that this has a big impact
on you
	ciao
	ric

______________________________________________________
Riccardo Faccini
Universita' "La Sapienza" & I.N.F.N. Roma
tel  +39/06/49914798 Fax.: +39/06/4957697
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini
Univ. La Sapienza. 2,Ple Aldo Moro, I-00185 Roma Dipartimento di Fisica

"I don't understand what you say, but I believe I disagree"

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Kerstin Tackmann wrote:

>
>
> Hi Ric,
>
> > > > > > In the BAD we do the following
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Evaluate B->semilep sys (using ONLY -b flag when submitting fit and Sys >
> > > > > > 0)
> > > > > > Evaluate  D->Excl sys  (using only -d flag when submitting fit and Sys
> > > > > > >=2)
> > > > > > Evaluate  D->Incl sys  (using only -d flag when submitting fit and Sys
> > > > > > =1)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And then we merge the B->semilep sys with the higher contribution from
> > Hi  Kerstin,
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > D->Excl or D->Incl .
> > > > >
> > > > > * What is meant by "merge"?
> > > > >   a) Combine the results for the errors for the B->semilep sys with D->Excl
> > > > >      sys and also the results for the errors for the B->semilep sys with
> > > > >      D->Incl sys and then look at these two combinations and consider them
> > > > >      as the error (obtained in two ways, excl and incl for the D->
> > > > >      sys)(Thus merging the results.)
> > > > >   b) Redo the procedure and evaluate the error for B->semilep sys and
> > > > >      D->Excl sys together and then evaluate the error on  B->semilep sys and
> > > > >      D->Incl sys together (rather than just merging the results). (Thus
> > > > >      merging the procedure. If this, what is taken as the error in the
> > > > >      end, the errors obtained separately for B and D or the error
> > > > >      obtained from the "merged procedure" or denepnding on the results?)
> > > >
> > > > a far as I remember we did  B->semilep sys and D->Excl sys together and
> > > > D->Incl separately. Then we added them in quadrature. We consider the two
> > > > effects as uncorrelated (take into account the correlation would a
> > > > nightmare and probably impossible). This approach should conservative
> > > > (also because there is some double counting). BTW the inclusive part turned out to be
> > > > small with respect to the other.
> > > > Alessio, can you confirm that?
> > >
> > > Sorry for asking again. But we still do not see why you are doing D->excl.
> > > and D->incl as well. Is anything new aspect/error coming in with the
> > > D->incl. that is not covered by the D->excl.? We would like to understand
> > > that.
> > >
> >
> > if you look at the exclusive modes we vary you will see that they are
> > predominantly the cabibbo suppressed ones (because they affect the
> > fraction of b->clnu events in the signal enriched sample, and that anyhow
>
> I am looking at ddecay.table for the exclusive modes. It looks like there
> are quite some modes that are not cabbibo-suppressed.
>
> > the total BF we consider is minuscule. Varying the inclusive BF accounts
> > for possible variations in all other modes
>
> Adding up the BFs for the D0 for example gives something like 0.6. So
> isn't this more than half of the fractions? Why is the total fraction
> considered miniscule then?
>
> Sorry for not understanding,
> Kerstin
>
>