Hi Bob,
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> I've been skimming bad1214 (I haven't read it carefully yet) and have a
> coupole quesitons:
>
> 0) Why do we have a smaller SF parameter error than Belle, yet use SF
> input (mb) that has a larger error than what they use?
>
> 1) Did you look at cuts other than 1.55 GeV for Mx? If not, why not?
>
> 2) If you are going to quote a systematic due to "binning", please read
> http://babar-hn.slac.stanford.edu:5090/HyperNews/get/Statistics/217.html
> and follow-ups and explain why you think you're actually measuring
> anything of value by doing this.
I have discussed this already with Roberto, Wolfgang and Mike at Elba.
My opinion on this is that we would not consider this as a systematic
error but have not understand the reason if we see a large effect
from binning.
Heiko
> 3) Why do you not quote a partial BF for the MX analysis?
>
> 4) Figure 17 is fairly convincing...that there's a problem with the
> background estimation.
>
> I'm eager to get these results into Francesco's talk; otherwise Belle will
> have a better Vub.... however, for publication I insist that Mx be treated
> with as much care as q2-Mx. It would also be nice to have P+....
>
> Bob
>
> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////
> / Robert V. Kowalewski \/ Dept. of Physics and Astronomy \
> \ particle.phys.uvic.ca/~kowalews /\ University of Victoria /
> / Tel: (250)721-7705 \/ P.O. Box 3055 \
> \ Email: [log in to unmask] /\ Victoria, BC V8W 3P6 /
> /////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>
|