 |
 |
Hi Rolf, I think our strategy will be (in lack of a better method) for the time being to use this recipe. If the effect is not large compared to other systematics I don't care if we overestimate it. So let's hope... Of course, if there is anything which is better than that and can be implemented on a very short timescale (to meet the ICHEP deadlines) we are happy to take that. Heiko On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Rolf Dubitzky wrote: > > I am not sure, but I would think that this overestimates the effect. > I would think that the probability to _miss_ a 100MeV photon is ony given by > the probability to miss-reconstruct its energy below your lower cut value. > > Cheers, Rolf > > On Friday 18 June 2004 13:39, Heiko Lacker wrote: > > Hi Urs, > > > > the idea is to use the pi0 recipe. I don't > > think we have something better for the time > > being ... > > > > > > Heiko > > > > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Urs Langenegger wrote: > > > Hoi Kerstin, > > > > > > > why in the BAD 540 analysis the uncertainty coming from neutral > > > > efficiency has not been included as a contribution to the > > > > systematic uncertainty? > > > > > > Is there a recipe for the inefficiency for single photons? I know of > > > one for pi0, but not for photons. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > --U. > > -- > contacts: http://www.physi.uni-heidelberg.de/~dubitzky >