 |
 |
Hi Vera, > I presume the two fits listed are the same fits as listed in Table 11, > just translating the fit results into Rc rather than Ru. Is this what was done? > Yes, it is. > In looking at the fits, I do not understand the errors > a) compared to Table 11 let's take the Bch case. Ru has 86 signal events with 85 background events (for Mx< 1.55). The error from the mes fit is 16. The error from the fit is 17. R_c has ~800 events (full range in Mx). The error from the mes fit (adding in quadrature all errors in each single bin) is 36 The error from the fit is 50. I studied this apparent diagreement. Fitting Rc fixing the remaining two components (R_u and R_o) I get 37 as error from the fit. Then the disagreement is due the fact that three componenents are floated at the same time. BTW fit on R_u is under control. > b) for Rc from the depleted sample and the various subsamples; > the weighted average of the subsamples are not consistent with the > results from the total sample and its error This disagreemet was due to a wrong N(Bch)/N(B0) reweighting. I remind you that the MC is reweighted in order to get the same N(Bch)/N(B0) ratio as in data. In this R_c fit I was just using the reweighting for the Vub MC and not for the Vcb (generic) MC. This implied a bias in the full sample. I fixd it. This is the last set of numbers I have. Enriched sample: All BRBR = 0.976831 +- 0.057952(stat) B0 BRBR = 0.967336 +- 0.105336(stat) Bch BRBR = 0.986532 +- 0.0677618(stat) ele BRBR = 0.952345 +- 0.072551(stat) mu BRBR = 0.983558 +- 0.0897417(stat) run1 BRBR = 1.07744 +- 0.0999208(stat) run2 BRBR = 0.9326 +- 0.0637472(stat) sb1 BRBR = 1.03512 +- 0.105587(stat) sb2 BRBR = 1.02624 +- 0.0781438(stat) sb3 BRBR = 0.904608 +- 0.0749679(stat) Depleted sample: All BRBR = 0.998844 +- 0.0296921(stat) B0 BRBR = 0.980276 +- 0.0584093(stat) Bch BRBR = 1.00257 +- 0.0341011(stat) ele BRBR = 1.00265 +- 0.0395835(stat) mu BRBR = 0.976236 +- 0.0404054(stat) run1 BRBR = 1.07242 +- 0.0469847(stat) run2 BRBR = 0.969857 +- 0.0325255(stat) sb1 BRBR = 0.987284 +- 0.0614623(stat) sb2 BRBR = 1.04291 +- 0.0412906(stat) sb3 BRBR = 0.962242 +- 0.0402913(stat) Now this set of numbers is more coherent. A bit of disagreement is still in the electrons-muons mean but this could be related to the fact that the two samples are not uncorrelated. > c) the "other" background is taken from MC, > how different is C_o in the enhanced and depleted samples? they are comptible within the stat error enriched : C_o = 0.405776 +- 0.290029 depleted : C_o = 0.28122 +- 0.163354 > d) when you fit the depleted sample, did you fix C_u? no, I don't. Actually in these fits C_u, C_c and C_o are floated. For the remining issues Urs is producing plots. Cheers, Daniele