 |
 |
Hi Urs, since the situation is so confused (in particular n25 vs n18), I think we should stick with what we have and take time in the next few days to check the results. just my 2c ciao ric On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Urs Langenegger wrote: > > Hoi, > > I am not sure I understand the situation completely (at the moment). > A further complication is that we are sitting on a moving target, > since the fit and the reweighting has been changing. Anyway, the raw > numbers are > > > n04 without kaon killing oldFit 0.02118 +- 0.0027 > n18 with muon killing oldFit 0.02276 +- 0.0027 > > n04 without kaon killing newFit 0.01895 +- 0.0023 > n18 with muon killing newFit 0.01884 +- 0.0022 > > n25 with muon killing, repeat of n18 0.02067 +- 0.0024 > n26 with muon killing, no fixed seed 0.02071 +- 0.0025 > n27 with muon killing, no fixed seed 0.02136 +- 0.0025 > n28 with muon killing, no fixed seed 0.02008 +- 0.0024 > n29 with muon killing, no fixed seed 0.02025 +- 0.0024 > n30 with muon killing, no fixed seed 0.02044 +- 0.0024 > n31 with muon killing, fixed seed, with K killing 0.01900 +- 0.0071 > > Remember, none of the systematics jobs originally run with kaon > PidKilling, that's why n04 is not the default result. The big jump we > observed was in n18 (oldFit) vs. n04. > > Anyway, if someone feels like extracting a systematic from this, > please do so and recompute the systematics table. > > Cheers, > --U. >