Hi Kerstin,
bremsstrahlung typically has a relevant effects on moments. In the case of
a cut on a variable (mX) which has a >350 MeV resolution, it does not seem
to be a problem we should worry about.
Also, the fact that Daniele's algorithm has changed our result within the
rounding used to quote it shows we should not worry about it.
I think you should mutuate the studies from BAD 636 where thorsten had to
take care of the problem in detail
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 Thu, 6 May 2004, Kerstin Tackmann wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> as you know we are currently redoing the systematics we had with the new
> signal MC reweighting, bremsstrahlung recovery and new ddecay.table and
> also work on the systematics which we were still missing with the former
> reweightings and ntuples.
>
> Apart from the sources of uncertainties listed in BAD 540 we might have to
> consider a systematic uncertainty coming from the simulation of
> bremsstrahlung and final state radiation in the MC. We should do this
> consistently with what you are doing. Is there already some recipe which
> you use or plan to use (together with Daniele's bremsstrahlung recovery)?
>
> Cheers,
> Kerstin
>
>
|