A Mathematica based Version of the CKMfitter Package
A Mathematica based Version of the CKMfitter Package
A Mathematica based Version of the CKMfitter Package
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
26 Chapter 4. A <strong>Ma<strong>the</strong>matica</strong> <strong>based</strong> <strong>Version</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>CKMfitter</strong> <strong>Package</strong><br />
4.7 Performance Tests<br />
The <strong>Ma<strong>the</strong>matica</strong> <strong>based</strong> version <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>CKMfitter</strong> package was created with <strong>the</strong> goal<br />
to achieve a significant fit time reduction compared to <strong>the</strong> original version. Since<br />
both are complex packages, which include also fit preparation and result processing,<br />
an objective comparison <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> pure minimization routines is beyond <strong>the</strong> scope <strong>of</strong> this<br />
<strong>the</strong>sis. However, <strong>the</strong>re is <strong>the</strong> possibility to compare <strong>the</strong> full analysis process using<br />
a test job, here <strong>the</strong> Standard Global CKM Fit (see Chapter 5). The conditions, for<br />
<strong>the</strong> comparison tests done in this work, are summarized in Table 4.5.<br />
Hardware/S<strong>of</strong>tware Test job<br />
CPU: Intel P III Analysis: SM global fit<br />
Frequency: 1266 MHz Scan: (¯ρ,¯η) plane<br />
Memory: 2048 MB RAM Granularity: 200<br />
OS: Scientific Linux 3.0.3 fits per point: 2<br />
Compiler: gnu f77 -O<br />
Table 4.5: Test conditions<br />
Figure 4.3 shows <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Standard Global CKM Fit and its single constraints<br />
in <strong>the</strong> (¯ρ,¯η) plane, produced by both versions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>CKMfitter</strong> package.<br />
The results presented numerically in Table 4.6 and graphically in Figure 4.3 are<br />
nearly identical.<br />
Parameter Original <strong>CKMfitter</strong> <strong>Ma<strong>the</strong>matica</strong> <strong>based</strong> package<br />
A 0.2272 +0.0010<br />
−0.0010<br />
λ 0.812 +0.015<br />
−0.015<br />
¯ρ 0.187 +0.025<br />
−0.086<br />
¯η 0.333 +0.038<br />
−0.017<br />
J [10−5 ] 3.02 +0.36<br />
−0.17<br />
0.2272 +0.0010<br />
−0.0010<br />
0.813 +0.015<br />
−0.015<br />
0.187 +0.028<br />
−0.086<br />
0.333 +0.038<br />
−0.017<br />
3.02 +0.36<br />
−0.18<br />
Table 4.6: Numerical comparison <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Wolfenstein parameters A, λ, ¯ρ, ¯η and <strong>the</strong> Jarlskog<br />
invariant J. The errors are quoted as 1-CL=32 % ranges (1σ).<br />
Possible reasons for <strong>the</strong> very small discrepancies could be <strong>the</strong> usage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> different<br />
parametrizations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Lattice QCD parameters, as explained in Section 5.1.12, <strong>the</strong><br />
different coded interplation routines for <strong>the</strong> LUTs or rounding effects value from <strong>the</strong><br />
determination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> central value.