 |
 |
Hi Kerstin, you are right that minuscule is a strong statement (I had not redone the sum) but anyhow a consistent fraction of modes is not considered (and most of them contain Ks and K+)> The RC asked us to consider also this error and we thought it was a good idea even if there is a ~50% redundance. If you wish you could rescale the individual BF and thorugh randomply also the inclusive ones and rescale only the missing BF, but I do not think it is worthwhile unless you show that this has a big impact on you ciao ric ______________________________________________________ Riccardo Faccini Universita' "La Sapienza" & I.N.F.N. Roma tel +39/06/49914798 Fax.: +39/06/4957697 http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini Univ. La Sapienza. 2,Ple Aldo Moro, I-00185 Roma Dipartimento di Fisica "I don't understand what you say, but I believe I disagree" On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Kerstin Tackmann wrote: > > > Hi Ric, > > > > > > > In the BAD we do the following > > > > > > > > > > > > Evaluate B->semilep sys (using ONLY -b flag when submitting fit and Sys > > > > > > > 0) > > > > > > Evaluate D->Excl sys (using only -d flag when submitting fit and Sys > > > > > > >=2) > > > > > > Evaluate D->Incl sys (using only -d flag when submitting fit and Sys > > > > > > =1) > > > > > > > > > > > > And then we merge the B->semilep sys with the higher contribution from > > Hi Kerstin, > > > > > > > > > > > > D->Excl or D->Incl . > > > > > > > > > > * What is meant by "merge"? > > > > > a) Combine the results for the errors for the B->semilep sys with D->Excl > > > > > sys and also the results for the errors for the B->semilep sys with > > > > > D->Incl sys and then look at these two combinations and consider them > > > > > as the error (obtained in two ways, excl and incl for the D-> > > > > > sys)(Thus merging the results.) > > > > > b) Redo the procedure and evaluate the error for B->semilep sys and > > > > > D->Excl sys together and then evaluate the error on B->semilep sys and > > > > > D->Incl sys together (rather than just merging the results). (Thus > > > > > merging the procedure. If this, what is taken as the error in the > > > > > end, the errors obtained separately for B and D or the error > > > > > obtained from the "merged procedure" or denepnding on the results?) > > > > > > > > a far as I remember we did B->semilep sys and D->Excl sys together and > > > > D->Incl separately. Then we added them in quadrature. We consider the two > > > > effects as uncorrelated (take into account the correlation would a > > > > nightmare and probably impossible). This approach should conservative > > > > (also because there is some double counting). BTW the inclusive part turned out to be > > > > small with respect to the other. > > > > Alessio, can you confirm that? > > > > > > Sorry for asking again. But we still do not see why you are doing D->excl. > > > and D->incl as well. Is anything new aspect/error coming in with the > > > D->incl. that is not covered by the D->excl.? We would like to understand > > > that. > > > > > > > if you look at the exclusive modes we vary you will see that they are > > predominantly the cabibbo suppressed ones (because they affect the > > fraction of b->clnu events in the signal enriched sample, and that anyhow > > I am looking at ddecay.table for the exclusive modes. It looks like there > are quite some modes that are not cabbibo-suppressed. > > > the total BF we consider is minuscule. Varying the inclusive BF accounts > > for possible variations in all other modes > > Adding up the BFs for the D0 for example gives something like 0.6. So > isn't this more than half of the fractions? Why is the total fraction > considered miniscule then? > > Sorry for not understanding, > Kerstin > >