 |
 |
Thanks Daniele, this confirms what Urs had shown before. I did not find the table you referred to. Can you please specify this more clearly? Also, did you include the smearing of tracks and neutrals foe SP3 and SP4 as we discussed yesterday? Thanks Vera --------------------------------------------------------------------- Vera G. Luth phone: 650 926 2702 SLAC-MS 95 fax: 650 926 2657 Stanford, CA 94309 USA e-mail: [log in to unmask] --------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Del Re, Daniele Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:28 AM To: vub-recoil Subject: GTVL track selection plots Hi all, I produced the comparison plots for the new track selection you find the results in the page: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/GTVL_AS.html and you can compare with the table in the page http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/disagree.html for the old selection (sometimes the chisquare could be screwed up because of bad mes fit with low stat) My comments are: - improvement in N charged and Qtot - small improvement in mm2 - nneu same level of disagreement (expected) - improvement in mxhad - mxhadfit: same level of comparison my final comment is that selection seems to be fine and actually can improve the result. I am not sure that we are using the right tables for the kinematic fit now. If not, results will be better in the future once we will plug in the right tables. I have another comment: actually in the generic MC we don't have the same ratio Bch/B0 (2 for generic MC and 1.7 for data). This for sure affects the Ncharged, qtot and Mx distributions. I will redo the comparison with the right balance. Daniele