Dear Tjeerd,

Replace "signal events" by "signal decays". (Patrick, I like to remove this comment, because we do select events, not decays. I do not understand the assumption about the branching fraction here. Therefore, I may misunderstand the whole meaning of this optimization.)

I try to get rid of the word "event" as much as possible as it's lazy jargon that prevents us from thinking about what we really mean. I keep "event" for the whole data corresponding to one bunch crossing, as in "the typical event has 50 tracks and 90 kB", or "global event variable". The SPD multiplicity is a property of an event. It got selected because it contains *candidate* (which are mostly background). In the end we measure a certain number of decays. It may or may not be equal to events due to multiple candidates. I think here we have decays. But I agree that event is understandable too.

All our "events" are "downstream". Patrick, what do you mean here?).

well, all tracks are downstream of the PV ;-) (If nobody gets the joke, remove it).

BTW

Line 33: Write "\B=\bd,\Bs decay vertex" here.

you mean \B=\Bd,\Bs

Thanks for having taken care of that one.

Patrick

On 13/09/15 21:43, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:mu

Dear all,

Attached are the combined comments of Patrick, Marcel, Gerco and me. Please, check if I changed you comments to a understandable version and is still what you meant. I included 2 questions to Patrick. Monday 18h I will upload our comments to CDS after my last checks.

Best regards, Tjeerd

---

Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics