 |
 |
interesting... in all these tests B0 results and slopes seem to be more stable than B+... Daniele On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Urs Langenegger wrote: > > Hoi, > > in > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/121602 > > you can find a table with BRBR's and links to scans for various > alternative cut scenarios. Note: in the scans I show the full errors > (on the left) and the quadratic difference to the default (on the > right). Nothing fancy, I am only trying to observe trends, not to > minizime the #sigma. > > Observations: > > o Applying a lower cut on mm2 cures some of the low-mX behavior. The > B+ are perfect afterwards (one might argue that they are not in the > default, though they are obviously quite good already). The B0 are > corrected into the right direction, but not enough. > > o Requiring a lower cut on mm2 *always* lowers BRBR (I played this > game only for the loosened upper cut at mm2 < 1.0). > > o Loosening the mm2 cut to be mm2 < 1.0 drives BRBR(B+) down > > o Fitting without depletion slightly increases the error, but does > not change much else. > > o Q1 drives all BRBR up, most notably with mm2 < 0.5. Once a cut of > -1 < mm2 < 1 is applied, the situation is stable. > > o The best stability for B0 (and B+) is for > fit-22: -1.0 < mm2 < 1.0 .and. -1 <= qtot <= 1 > fit-32: no depl .and. mm2 < 1.0 .and. -1 <= qtot <= 1 > The latter has a quite remarkable consistency between B0 and B+. > > So this is a third way (after smearing and a variation) how to > systematically alter the mX scan behavior. > > > Cheers, > --U. > >