 |
 |
Hi Urs, is the hybrid done in the "SP4" way or in the new way I committed? The difference in the hit and miss might make a difference in this respect ciao ric ______________________________________________________ Riccardo Faccini Universita' "La Sapienza" & I.N.F.N. Roma tel +39/06/49914457 Fax.: +39/06/4957697 http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini Univ. La Sapienza. 2,Ple Aldo Moro, I-00185 Roma Dipartimento di Fisica "We need serenity to accept what we cannot change, courage to change what we can and wisdom to distinguish between the two" [R. Kiplin, allegedly] On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Urs Langenegger wrote: > > Hoi, > > I counted KKbar pairs in the Xu system on an unbiased event sample, > obtained directly from EvtGen. My apparent problem in the > normalization turned out not to be a problem at all, but just physics. > The rate for ssbar popping in the nonresonant component in the hybrid > MC is different from the nonresonant MC. > > Here are the numbers: > > ssbar in % Dedicated MC Hybrid MC > -------------------------------------------------- > B+ resonant 10.2 10.7 > B+ nonresonant 7.3 12.0 > > B0 resonant 0.2 0.1 > B0 nonresonant 7.1 11.3 > > "Dedicated" means that it's just the resonant (nonresonant) component, > no mixture between the two. If I run the "dedicated" nonresonant MC > with the same reweighting (for the non-resonant part) as the hybrid > MC, the dedicated and hybrid MC have ssbar popping rates compatible > within the stat. error. > > The resonant numbers agree with Daniele's DECAY.DEC calculation within > the stat. error. > > Cheers, > --U. >