Hi Heiko,
> I'm a puzzled by the number of signal in the data fit: 54947 ± 2997
> On May 11th it was: 97652 ± 1070
Yes. The problem on the latest fit is that the Crystal Ball contribution
is higher: 89518.
On May 11th it was 43230: the difference would cover the gap.
This difference is also present in the mES range [5.27,5.29]: for the
Crystal ball yield we have 63467 while on May 11th we had 30650.
> About the combinatoric BG: I'm still not convinced why we need to fit
> two contributions.
I thought it would have been useful if we had found a different shape in
the ARGUS function for non-BBbar events... anwyay, the fit on data with
only one ARGUS function for combinatoric BG is the one on May 11th.
I'm running the fit on MC right now.
> And then a question: Does this fit already use Wolfgang's recipe taking
> into account the 40 different ARGUS functions?
No, it doesn't....
Antonio
> On Tue, 16 May 2006, Antonio Petrella wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>>>>
|