 |
 |
Hi Bob, On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 [log in to unmask] wrote: > I've been skimming bad1214 (I haven't read it carefully yet) and have a > coupole quesitons: > > 0) Why do we have a smaller SF parameter error than Belle, yet use SF > input (mb) that has a larger error than what they use? > > 1) Did you look at cuts other than 1.55 GeV for Mx? If not, why not? > > 2) If you are going to quote a systematic due to "binning", please read > http://babar-hn.slac.stanford.edu:5090/HyperNews/get/Statistics/217.html > and follow-ups and explain why you think you're actually measuring > anything of value by doing this. I have discussed this already with Roberto, Wolfgang and Mike at Elba. My opinion on this is that we would not consider this as a systematic error but have not understand the reason if we see a large effect from binning. Heiko > 3) Why do you not quote a partial BF for the MX analysis? > > 4) Figure 17 is fairly convincing...that there's a problem with the > background estimation. > > I'm eager to get these results into Francesco's talk; otherwise Belle will > have a better Vub.... however, for publication I insist that Mx be treated > with as much care as q2-Mx. It would also be nice to have P+.... > > Bob > > \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////// > / Robert V. Kowalewski \/ Dept. of Physics and Astronomy \ > \ particle.phys.uvic.ca/~kowalews /\ University of Victoria / > / Tel: (250)721-7705 \/ P.O. Box 3055 \ > \ Email: [log in to unmask] /\ Victoria, BC V8W 3P6 / > /////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ >