 |
 |
______________________________________________________ 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, > > > > > 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 the total BF we consider is minuscule. Varying the inclusive BF accounts for possible variations in all other modes ciao ric