Just to have the links in the mailing list ... ______________________________________________________ Alessio Sarti Universita' & I.N.F.N. Ferrara tel +39-0532-974328 Ferrara roma +39-06-49914338 SLAC +001-650-926-2972 "... e a un Dio 'fatti il culo' non credere mai..." (F. De Andre') "He was turning over in his mind an intresting new concept in Thau-dimensional physics which unified time, space, magnetism, gravity and, for some reason, broccoli". (T. Pratchett: "Pyramids") ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:45:30 -0800 (PST) From: Riccardo Faccini <[log in to unmask]> To: Urs Langenegger <[log in to unmask]> Cc: Daniele Del Re <[log in to unmask]>, Alessio Sarti <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: mm2_min Hi Urs, I would say that you tests show clearly a correlation between low mm2 and fake events at 1.6 GeV, and this is interesting. I checked that you reproduce the same results as daniele for the default scan (mm2>-1000, prmm2>-3) and you actually agree on the neutral Bs, http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini/phys/vub/mm2_min/mm2_danb0.datmxCut.eps http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini/phys/vub/mm2_min/mm2_danb0.datmxCutdiff.eps but not on the charged Bs http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini/phys/vub/mm2_min/mm2_danbch.datmxCut.eps http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini/phys/vub/mm2_min/mm2_danbch.datmxCutdiff.eps but I am afraid daniele is still using the problematic B+. As an addition to your information, in http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini/phys/vub/mm2_min/ I produce the scans for the lower cut on mm2 at mx<1.55 from your dat files (this is why I was looking at them). B0 http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini/phys/vub/mm2_min/mm2bnu.txtmnuSqLow.eps http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini/phys/vub/mm2_min/mm2bnu.txtmnuSqLowdiff.eps Bch http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini/phys/vub/mm2_min/mm2bch.txtmnuSqLow.eps http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini/phys/vub/mm2_min/mm2bch.txtmnuSqLowdiff.eps All http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini/phys/vub/mm2_min/mm2bal.txtmnuSqLow.eps http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini/phys/vub/mm2_min/mm2bal.txtmnuSqLowdiff.eps I have a few comments on your and these plots: - I am missing why you say that there is stability on the first table at mm2=-0.3 for the B0 if at -0.3 the measurement is 144 and at -0.1 is 99 !!! - I would in general say that cutting at much more than -0.5 does not make much sense because you fall in the middle of the resolution (same argument we apply on the high side). From the scans I am sending you I would say that B0 show a sort of plateu at -0.5, and that the point at -0.1 is an ecception. I would therefore put out on the table the point at -0.3 (or at 0.5, but the significance is the same). - I think it should be stressed in your page that the statistical power of the measurement changes a lot, since the relative error goes from 12% of the default analysis to the 15% of the final one, although accidentally (?) the error stays the same [I am trying to find something that could cause this systematically, but I can't]. This said of course we would all be happy to loose stat power to cure a systematics. I will keep looking into the low mm2 events on my prmm2>-3 events and their correlation with low purity modes. ciao ric On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Urs Langenegger wrote: > > Hoi, > > I have updated the page with the new fits (including a cut on prmm2). > > Cheers, > --U. > >