Hi all, I run a test to estimate the systematic uncertainty due to the uncertainty on S/P in mES data fits in the following way: 1) Take the S/P ratios determined as S/P(data_enriched) = [S/P(MC_enriched) / S/P(MC_depleted)] * S/P (data_depleted) I have used the values which I have been recently playing with, i.e. #mx_l mx_h corr err_corr 0.00 1.55 1.499 +- 0.495 1.55 1.90 2.688 +- 0.655 1.90 2.20 1.801 +- 0.296 2.20 2.50 1.896 +- 0.611 2.50 2.80 1.165 +- 0.468 2.80 3.10 0.637 +- 0.311 3.10 3.40 19.367+- 34.585 3.40 3.70 1.524 +- 1.610 3.70 4.20 8.180 +- 31.833 4.20 5.00 0.555 +- 6.639 No attempt to fit a n-th order polynomial, just take the values as they come out of the single bin-by-bin fits on data depleted, MC enriched and depleted. Note that the relative errors are quite large (e.g. 33% on the first bin, 25% on the second, 22% on the third, 32% on the 4th, higher and higher as mX increases). 2) Randomize simultaneously the 10 above values according to a gaussian distribution whose mean is the correction (column corr) and whose sigma is the uncertainty (err_corr). The random number is of course different for each mX bin. 3) Fit with VVF by using the randomized S/P of point 2) 4) go to 2), change the random seed, repeat 100 times Results of the 100 jobs are in http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~bozzi/scra/Ibu_SP_* *=1,...,100 Take the (width/mean) ratio of the resulting 100 fits as systematic uncertainty: yakut02(~:) grep "BRBR " ~bozzi/scra/Ibu_SP_*/*dat | awk 'BEGIN{sum=0; sum2=0}{sum+= $3; sum2+=$3*$3; num++}END{print sum/num; print sqrt(sum2/num-sum*sum/num/num)}' 0.0291231 0.00188286 The relative uncertainty is 0.00188/0.02912 = 6.46% i.e. 3.2% on Vub. This is somewhat lower than a naive argument which can be used (see below) to give the error on the fitted Vub events in the first bin and which give about twice (13.2%) the error on BRBR. I think the reason for this is that the errors on the first 4 bins are comparable, which reduces the lever arm and therefore the variation in the first bin. Quite promising, isn't it? Concezio. PS: here is the naive argument on the uncertainty on the number of signal events in the first bin, which translates in the uncertainty on BRBR. We have N_signal = N_data - N_argus - N_peaking N_peaking = N_signal * 1/corr (corr is the S/P correction factor) Solving for N_signal: N_signal = [corr / (1+ corr)] * [N_data - N_argus] Error propagation gives: delta(N_signal) / N_signal = [delta(corr) / corr] / (1+corr) Taking corr = 1.499, delta(corr)/corr = 0.33 we get delta(N_signal) / N_signal = 13.2%