 |
 |
if I can summarize changes BRBR=0.0206 instead of 0.0197 which is the announced 5%, which unfortunately is due mostly to n00 -> o00 and not to the new MC ... The sys table (and the final sys error) have not been updated (at least in the repository) the point at 1.7 GeV has gone up (0.0235 instead of 0.0211) which makes me worry about the scan. Actually we should probably look at the scan with o00, to see if something happened. Electrons are perfectly stable, muons changed by 10%. Can it be that o00 is done fiddling around with mu-id? I think the situation is under control, but maybe a little more investigation on o00 is required ciao ric On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Urs Langenegger wrote: > > Hoi, > > I ran with the new generic MC included and have updated the BADs: All > numbers (except the multi fit numbers in 540 which I accidently > deleted and which are being redone at the moment) and the plots in 582 > are updated. All changed a bit, have a look for yourself. > > In http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/032803/main.ps.gz you can > find the usual set of data/MC comparisons. > > The efficiency tables in 540 still need to be updated (I'll do that), > and also the zillion of fit plots (I don't want to change the naming > scheme now). > > The muon misid jobs are still running. > > Also: It would be very beneficial if some else could run all the fits > so that we have two independent cross-checks. > > Another thing: I think it would be even more useful if someone could > check the computation of the branching fraction b2ulnu with error > propagation from BRBR. Same for Vub. I think it would defeat the > purpose if this were done with my code. > > Cheers, > --U. > >