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?
>
yes that's what I did. I used two distributions; the one that fits non
BBbar has values fixed on result from non BBbar MC fit only.
cheers,
Antonio
> 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
>>>>>>
|