 |
 |
On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Urs Langenegger wrote: > > Hoi, > > I presume the b2u reweighting is implemented in a way that the > multiplicity fits can be done as usual? The reweighting is done at Loop level that is blind about the fitting technique... > I get the following numbers on > anaQA-n00: > > > Sample nocat mult. fit > -------------------------------- > B 0.0298 0.0213 > B0 0.0264 0.0332 > B+ 0.0181 0.0182 > The first column IS NOT showing the default results, am I right? Were's the logfiles for those fit jobs? > The B0 is drastically different. > > Could someone please check these numbers? An confirm that the > difference is not due to the implementation? > Given that the weights are computed at Loop level I do not see any obvious 'technical' reason for having those two different results. The fact is that for sure we're reweighting b2u MC in a different way for B0 and B+ and the mult fit can be more sensitive to that due to the different eff in the various categories: I'm still trying to investigate why there's such shift.... If the weights that you apply are the correct ones the effect should, however be compatible for B0 and B+... > But now to the second part of this mail: > > At some point someone will calculate the significance between the B0 > result of summer and this one ... > > We have shifted the result of B0 by more than one (statistical) sigma > with respect to the previous version (of the BAD)! I am a bit > confused (and cannot find all what we had yesterday in Alessio's page > anymore, it seems to have been updated). Assuming we MIGHT have a > background problem in B0, do we attribute this to signal? If I > understand Alessio's webpage correctly, we reweight B0 and B+ > separately? But I am not sure what the difference is between row 3 and > row 5 in the "Default results" table. I am somewhat concerned by this > large shift. Hi Urs, as discussed in our last meeting we decided to reweight separately B0 and B+ in order to take into count the differences btw the exclusive spectra/BRs properly. So I've just splitted B0 and B+ and tested that the weights that are coming from that operation have on the overall sample the same effect as before. (value in 3rd and 4th column are showing you the effect: ball value does not change while B0 and B+ do). So the only diffenrece btw default result in row 3 and row 4 is that i've switched on the reweighting separately for B0 and B+. Going now to row 5 you'll see the new FINAL/DEFAULT value obtained after ITERATIONS of weight calculations. I've started with our BRBR value (2.02) instead of using 1.7 (PDG) and I've iterated the weight calculations switching every time to the new measured value (waiting for a stabilization of our sresult). The 3rd iteration was the good one and from that one I've committed the weights and find out the new default. Hope that this is a bit more clear... So the only change is that the value for BRBR used in weight calculation has been taken from our measurement iterating. Let me know if there's anything still unclear ... Alessio > > Cheers, > --U. >