VUB-RECOIL Archives

Vub measurement using recoil of fully reconstructed Bs

VUB-RECOIL@LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Heiko Lacker <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
8 May 2006 16:40:21 +0200 (CEST)Mon, 8 May 2006 16:40:21 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (43 lines)
Hi Antonio,

one question I forgot to ask:
why did you rescale in the non-extended chi^2 fit with
the chi^2 fit you find in the histo of the extended NLL?

Cheers,
Heiko

On Mon, 8 May 2006, Antonio Petrella wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I've posted the chi^2 scaling also for data.
> In this case the fit seems to be more unstable: multiplying errors by 
> 0.1  led to a real bad fit (Chi^2 ~ 1800).
> 
> Heiko Lacker ha scritto:
> 
> >>> 2) I'm a bit surprised when comparing your fit on data with the plot shown 
> >>>    at April 19: The statistics is not exactly the same (order 20% difference). 
> >>>    Why is that?
> >> I think it is due to the different tuning of parameters. Looking at the 
> >> plot of April 19th we can see that the amount of event fitted by 
> >> crystall ball in the signal region is greater than on the last plot. So 
> >> the number of signal events is lower.
> >> In addition for the fit on data of april 19th I set the endpoint for 
> >> Argus and Cristall ball fixed, which is not so good when fitting data, 
> >> is that right?
> >> So I would say that the latest fit (5 may) has more correct assumptions.
> > This is not exactly what I meant. The number of events in the mES peak
> > is different between both plots.
> > 
> 
> I think it is because the fit of 19 apr. gives more fraction to Cristal 
> ball than to signal function wrt the fit on 5 may.
> 
> 
>   Antonio
> 



ATOM RSS1 RSS2