 |
 |
Hi Kerstin, > I'd like to ask one more question for clarification. In the BAD you say > > "We take the difference of 3.0% between the final analysis result using > the hybrid and the non-resonant MC samples as systematic error..." > > What is meant by "hybrid" here? The hybrid as it comes out of the > generator or the hybrid after the default reweighting (taking res events > from hybrid and the reweighted nonres events)? > I still wonder about the 3%. with hybrid we mean the "new" hybrid (default in your table) i.e. the reweighted hybrid we did by ourselves in the fit code. The "generic MC" hybrid is something different. It has a total BR(b->u) = 0.0013 (we are using 2.2) thus implying a smaller fraction of non-resonant events. That's why you get a large difference in the final result (between what you call hybrid and non-res). Daniele > > > > > I will give the numbers which I found here: > > > > > > *** default > > > BRBR 0.0219666 0.00234676 0.000873771 > > > Eps_Cut = 0.775344 +- 0.00854322 > > > Eps_tot = 0.248835 +- 0.00501357 > > > > > > *** nonres > > > BRBR 0.0220791 0.00236418 0.00104411 > > > Eps_Cut = 0.777663 +- 0.0137036 > > > Eps_tot = 0.247003 +- 0.00801005 > > > > > > *** hybrid > > > BRBR 0.0196832 0.00210833 0.000834273 > > > Eps_Cut = 0.803137 +- 0.0103391 > > > Eps_tot = 0.276976 +- 0.00683329 > > > > > > This does look better than yesterday, though not like 3% for the hybrid. > > > > > > Here is the plot for the signal mc: > > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~kerstin/vubchop_onevubcomp.eps > > > > > > Kerstin > > > > > >