 |
 |
Ric- to avoid confusion - surely you mean release analyis-20 (14 series) ? we will be running on the sp5 objy in analysis-20, no? Ed On Friday 16 April 2004 09:55 am, Riccardo Faccini allegedly wrote: > 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