 |
 |
we should also try and turnoff the dirtier modes in the semiexclusive reconstructions (4pions+pi0,4 pions, ...) ... Did anybody already study this in the past? 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 Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Daniele del Re wrote: > > yes, moreover no sb4 mode should be in bsemiexcl skims. > > it is just a switch in the module that select the best B I would say. I > don't remember if it can be set by tcl or we should touch the code. > > Daniele > > On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Riccardo Faccini wrote: > > > Ok, just to clarify: > > so we should remove SB4 not only from the tagbits we > > run on, but also from the list of Bs we reconstruct and dump > > ciao > > ric > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Daniele del Re wrote: > > > > > > > > If we run with latest tags I would say no (analysis-20) if we remove sb4. > > > > > > Daniele > > > > > > > Hi Daniele, > > > > this means that when running on R12 we have to apply the cut. > > > > 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 Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Daniele del Re wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ric, > > > > > > > > > > as you know, purity at root code level and purity at Beta > > > > > level did not match in release 10. I fixed that for new skims and new > > > > > tables in beta should be as the ones used in bad 540. > > > > > As a consequence the cut you are talking about should be already in place. > > > > > if you remove sb4 you will take only modes that satisfy cut at page > > > > > 82 of BAD 540. > > > > > > > > > > rate on data went down to 1.6% (from 4%) and to below 7% for gene > > > > > MC. > > > > > > > > > > Urs could you take into account this rates and recompute your numbers as > > > > > far as disk needed? > > > > > > > > > > Daniele > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Riccardo Faccini wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I guess you are right > > > > > > my next suggestion is to cut on purity from the start, i.e. consider only > > > > > > events with a higher purity of the indivual modes. > > > > > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini/lost+found/purcut.eps > > > > > > shows the distribution of the purity for generic MC events and the cuts > > > > > > that we apply at analysis level (we require the events to have a purity > > > > > > higher than a given one). > > > > > > It looks like we can save quite some time and space if we request for > > > > > > istance that all events have at least one candidate with a 8% purity. > > > > > > > > > > > > opinions? > > > > > > ciao > > > > > > ric > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Oliver Buchmueller wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is certainly worth to test whether or not the normalization to > > > > > > > semileptonic events will work and perhaps even improve the > > > > > > > extraction of the BR(bsg). However, given the fact that there > > > > > > > is at least one thesis a stake I would still vote for a production > > > > > > > without cuts - unless someone can proof that an alternative way will work > > > > > > > as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my two cents ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oliver > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Riccardo Faccini wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hmmm, I see the problem ( ehem and I was among those who thought > > > > > > > > Fabio's thesis...). > > > > > > > > You can normalize to the number of semileptonic events. In this case you > > > > > > > > will be affected by the systematics on the cut on the lepton, but I think > > > > > > > > it will balance the systmatics on the mes fit which will be reduced. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do people think? > > > > > > > > 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 Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Henning Ulrik Flaecher wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just noticed that the filtering on leptons and photons above a certain > > > > > > > > > energy cut is (most likely) not an option for the bsg analysis as for the > > > > > > > > > branching fraction measurement we need to normalise to an unbiased B > > > > > > > > > sample and so the full Breco sample. > > > > > > > > > This is how it has been done for Fabio's thesis. > > > > > > > > > Requiring a lepton or photon with a certain energy will most likely bias > > > > > > > > > our normalisation sample, e.g. all B->charged hadron decays would be > > > > > > > > > lost, a fraction of the SL decays etc. > > > > > > > > > The reason why the b->ulv analysis can live with this cut is because they > > > > > > > > > measure a double ratio of branching fractions, so they can normalise to a > > > > > > > > > sample with the same cuts applied. > > > > > > > > > At the moment I can't see how we can get around this but appreciate any > > > > > > > > > ideas! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > Henning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >