 |
 |
I remind all of you some useful links for today's discussion: Scans and data-MC comparisons http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~asarti/recoil/update/ and Low Mx study crosschecks http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~asarti/recoil/mx_stu/ CU at YAM, Alessio ______________________________________________________ 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") On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Riccardo Faccini wrote: > Hello folks, > I run the data-MC agreement for the electrons and the muons separately on > the control sample: > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini/phys/vub/dstarlnuel/-comp.html > (electrons) > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini/phys/vub/dstarlnumu/-comp.html > (muons) > > If anything the problem here is in the muon sample. Statistics is low, but > unfortunately the control sample does not seem to indicate a problem in > the electrons. > > > I also wanted to point out that something must have changed recently, > since muons (all B) used to measure (see BAD) 171+/-39 10^-4 while now > they measure 162+/-35 while the electrons used to measure 195+/-36 and are > now measureing 222+/-35. > > Are we sure we are not using the PID tables at anaQA level? > ciao > ric >