Print

---

Hi,

> > > 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
> > > 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.

Thanks a lot,
Kerstin