 |
 |
I'm looking at the newest info from PDG - either the 2004 book or the webpage. For ex, from PDG 04: D0->Kpi 3.80+/-0.09 % (this is what we see in VubAnalysis/ddecay.table) but in RecoilAnalysis/ddecay.table it is 3.83+/-0.09 % On Friday 07 January 2005 03:22 pm, Kerstin Tackmann allegedly wrote: > Hi Ed, > > which PDG are you using to check the values in ddecay.table? > I know this is not exactly the answer to your question, but we have been > using the ddecay.table in VirVubFitter. This should have the PDG2003 > values in it, Ric updated this last March. And I am not aware of any more > recent update. > > Cheers, > Kerstin > > On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Edward Hill wrote: > > After checking - I'm going to commit changes to VubAnalysis b/c > > RecoilAnalysis' version of recoilDSys is the properly maintained one - so > > i'm just copying it over. > > > > However, it looks like the ddecay.table file from VubAnalysis has the > > correct BR values from PDG and the version in RecoilAnalysis doesn't. > > Can another pair of eyes quickly double check this assertation - i'd like > > to know whether i'm taking crazy pills or not. > > > > Cheers, > > Ed > > > > On Friday 07 January 2005 10:44 am, Edward Hill allegedly wrote: > > > So, it seems pretty clear that the RecoilAnalysis version is the > > > well-maintained version. I can't even recall doing a migration or in > > > which direction i migrated it. I assume from VubAna->RecoilAna for the > > > introduction of the recoil analysis base class. > > > I'll go through the 2 and bring each up to speed with the other. > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > On Friday 07 January 2005 10:31 am, Kerstin Tackmann allegedly wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I made some changes to recoilDSys in RecoilAnalysis last February, > > > > but I did not touch the recoilDSys in VubAnalysis. > > > > I posted a short description of the changes is posted here: > > > > http://babar-hn.slac.stanford.edu:5090/HyperNews/get/semi_lept_decays > > > >/4.h tm l > > > > > > > > But since it refers to the AWG meeting before the posting, it might > > > > be a little unclear. I made three types of changes to the code: > > > > > > > > 1) I changed the weights that were used for the B->Xclnu BFs > > > > according to the values of the AWG-reweighting page. Since the > > > > uncertainties there were asymmetric I implemented an asymmetric > > > > Gaussian in the Brandomize function for the variation of the BFs. > > > > > > > > 2) I had problems with how the random numbers were thrown, since it > > > > used the time to set the seed and when jobs would start too shortly > > > > after another they would give me the same results (which is obviously > > > > not what we want). So I changed it so you could pass a number that > > > > determined how the seed got set (in pratice it throws random numbers > > > > for 10*the number you pass it and uses the random numbers it throws > > > > after throwing these 10*x away, and accordingly for the D weights). > > > > So you would call VirVubFitter with -Sys i, i=3...52 or so and were > > > > sure to get different random numbers thrown per job (and I made > > > > checks the distributions of the weights looks ok doing it this way > > > > and to not have some strange behavior). > > > > > > > > 3) This is for the unfolding, so we could write out the weights into > > > > files and read them in later again when running in our binning. > > > > > > > > This version was tagged KT022304. I do not know if Concezio's changes > > > > were made after this. > > > > > > > > Kerstin > > > > > > > > On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Concezio Bozzi wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > in VirVubFitter we have been using RecoilAnalysis/recoilDSys, but > > > > > we also did (more than 1 year ago) detailed checks with > > > > > VubAnalysis/recoilDSys, which I believe gave consistent results. > > > > > At the moment we cannot check the details in our logbooks (both > > > > > Virginia and I are not in Ferrara), we'll do that on Monday. > > > > > Ciao, Concezio. > > > > > > > > > > Daniele del Re wrote: > > > > > >>yes, in principle you are right. However, > > > > > >> VubAnalysis/fitNtp.cc includes the other version (the one in > > > > > >> VubAnalysis). So it would be nice to have THE person to know > > > > > >> sign off with a better CL than "I presume". Are the > > > > > >> differences between the two versions understood? > > > > > > > > > > > >VirVubFitter results were consistent with the fitNtp ones (right > > > > > >Virginia) and fitNtp is not used since ages. > > > > > > > > > > > >This is what I know. I am noticing that the VubAnalysis version > > > > > > was the result of the migration done by Ed. Probably Ed himself > > > > > > knows if there was an original large difference between the two. > > > > > > After the first commit there have been just two versions with > > > > > > fixes by Kerstin and Concezio. > > > > > > > > > > > > Daniele