Hi,
do I understnad correctly that you treat the combinatoric BG with
two different distributions. I would have rather used only one
distribution for the Argus fit. What do the others think?
Cheers,
Heiko
On Mon, 15 May 2006, Heiko Lacker wrote:
> Hi Antonio,
>
> could you please also post the result for the fit parameters?
>
> Heiko
>
> On Mon, 15 May 2006, Antonio Petrella wrote:
>
> > Hi Heiko,
> > I've posted two fit that have converged on my page.
> >
> > MC is a mixing of non BBbar and generic BBbar. Then the same code has
> > been used on data.
> > Fit on MC looks very good, and also on data... we still have the some
> > problem on endpoint.
> >
> > The purple line is the Argus pdf for ccbar and uds.
> >
> > Bye,
> > Antonio
> >
> > Heiko Lacker ha scritto:
> > > Hi Antonio,
> > >
> > > On Mon, 15 May 2006, Antonio Petrella wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Heiko,
> > >> fitting the non BBbar MC the parameter that we get for the Argus PDF
> > >> is very similar to the BBbar MC (Argus Shape parameter is 24.89 ± 0.37
> > >> now w.r.t. the other value 25.23 ± 0.4 - see
> > >> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~petrella/mesfits/mesfits.html)
> > >>
> > >> So it seems that this background is already described by the one Argus
> > >> we have been using. Is that right?
> > > In principle, yes. Nevertheless, it would good to see the effect
> > > in the combination.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Heiko
> > >
> > >> Antonio
> > >>
> > >> Heiko Lacker ha scritto:
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> any news from the fit on MC when mixing in the non-BBbar MC?
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers,
> > >>> Heiko
> > >>>
> >
>
|