answers to xugf’s questions cj -> kk liang yan 11-11-2013
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Answers to Xugf’s questions cj -> KK Liang Yan 11-11-2013](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56649e635503460f94b5fe9e/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Answers to Xugf’s questionsccj->fKKp
Liang Yan11-11-2013
![Page 2: Answers to Xugf’s questions cj -> KK Liang Yan 11-11-2013](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56649e635503460f94b5fe9e/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Question 1
• The systematic error for N>=6 should be considered
• A: I change to N>=6 to N=6 to get the branching fractions, and take the difference as the contribution of N>=6.
![Page 3: Answers to Xugf’s questions cj -> KK Liang Yan 11-11-2013](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56649e635503460f94b5fe9e/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
By comparing the multiplicity of charged tracks, the systematic error is about 0.04%. Considering the small uncertainty, loose vertex cut for selection of Ks, we still use the the criteria nGood>=6.
![Page 4: Answers to Xugf’s questions cj -> KK Liang Yan 11-11-2013](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56649e635503460f94b5fe9e/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Question 2
• You should give a weighted average for the TRK and PID instead to say 1% and 2% per track simply.
• A: Yes, TRK and PID for kaon are 1.58% and 2.23%. For Pion, we use 1% for TRK and PID as a conservative estimation
![Page 5: Answers to Xugf’s questions cj -> KK Liang Yan 11-11-2013](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56649e635503460f94b5fe9e/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Kaon tracking
![Page 6: Answers to Xugf’s questions cj -> KK Liang Yan 11-11-2013](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56649e635503460f94b5fe9e/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Kaon PID
![Page 7: Answers to Xugf’s questions cj -> KK Liang Yan 11-11-2013](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56649e635503460f94b5fe9e/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Pion tracking
![Page 8: Answers to Xugf’s questions cj -> KK Liang Yan 11-11-2013](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56649e635503460f94b5fe9e/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Pion PID
![Page 9: Answers to Xugf’s questions cj -> KK Liang Yan 11-11-2013](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56649e635503460f94b5fe9e/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Question 3
• ccjLineshape systematic error.
• A: Only use the MC shape fitting results to compare our results as the contribution of ccjLineshape. KsKpi channels are
![Page 10: Answers to Xugf’s questions cj -> KK Liang Yan 11-11-2013](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56649e635503460f94b5fe9e/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
eAA eAB eBA eBB
Chic0 9.55% 3.17% 3.18% 9.57%
Chic1 10.43% 3.23% 3.31% 10.55%
Chic2 10.25% 3.15% 3.12% 10.31%
![Page 11: Answers to Xugf’s questions cj -> KK Liang Yan 11-11-2013](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56649e635503460f94b5fe9e/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Considering PS factor
MC shape convoluted Gauss
![Page 12: Answers to Xugf’s questions cj -> KK Liang Yan 11-11-2013](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56649e635503460f94b5fe9e/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Question 4
• MC models: As you described in App.D.1, the weighted eff. is mostly depended on the branching ratio of the intermediated states, If the fit results with a large errors, do you think it is reliable?
• A: I would like to use the weighted eff. instead of phase space eff. And change the weighted eff. based on the fitting errors, and take the difference as the systematic errors. (But it will change the final results, and some systematic errors should be redone.)
![Page 13: Answers to Xugf’s questions cj -> KK Liang Yan 11-11-2013](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56649e635503460f94b5fe9e/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
mode Chic0 Chic1 chic2
h1380 0.03730.0751 0.13580.0737 0.20300.0374
f1680 0.16320.1032 0.05130.0848 0.11820.0384
3-body 0.79950.2262 0.81290.1981 0.67880.0849
eAA(%) eAB(%) eBA(%) eBB(%)
chic0 9.942.63 3.741.04 3.611.00 9.582.52
chic1 10.962.54 3.650.95 3.610.94 10.512.44
chic2 11.131.11 3.820.41 3.890.42 10.751.08
![Page 14: Answers to Xugf’s questions cj -> KK Liang Yan 11-11-2013](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56649e635503460f94b5fe9e/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Question 5
• If some necessary and important check you did no include in your memo, only referees know what are you doing, once your draft release to the collaboration, other people probably ask the same question, you will answer the same question again and again.
• A:……