Hi Antonio,
On Tue, 16 May 2006, Antonio Petrella wrote:
> 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.
>
How is the signal yield actually defined? I thought by integrating the
area under the green curve.
> > 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....
I assume that the two ARGUS functions have slightly different endpoints
and hence can partly compensate problems in the BG region which would
explain the improvement in the chi^2.
Cheers,
Heiko
> 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
> >>>>>>>>
>
|