 |
 |
Hoi, I fitted both data and generic MC with the b2c shapes from either generic only or from generic + cocktail = 'All'. In all different setups (except B0 on data) the results with the shape from generic is systematically lower by 21-30%. All this is done with the 'official' files, and not yet constraining the fit. ====================================================================== Fitting data ---------------------------------------------------------------------- B0: --- Generic: BRBR = 0.0034528 +- 0.00577785(stat) +- 0.0036574(MC stat) All: BRBR = 0.00267254 +- 0.00714268(stat) +- 0.00220775(MC stat) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- B+: --- Generic: BRBR = 0.0210934 +- 0.00441897(stat) +- 0.00225001(MC stat) All: BRBR = 0.0267783 +- 0.00543305(stat) +- 0.0017851(MC stat) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- B: -- Generic: BRBR = 0.0133686 +- 0.00347803(stat) +- 0.00185617(MC stat) All: BRBR = 0.0169572 +- 0.00429294(stat) +- 0.00124563(MC stat) ====================================================================== Fitting GENERIC MC as data ---------------------------------------------------------------------- B0: --- Generic: BRBR = 0.00982946 +- 0.00390754(stat) +- 0.00313629(MC stat) All: BRBR = 0.012189 +- 0.00485377(stat) +- 0.00196494(MC stat) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- B+: --- Generic: BRBR = 0.00823618 +- 0.00270148(stat) +- 0.00220829(MC stat) All: BRBR = 0.0106768 +- 0.00331714(stat) +- 0.00142229(MC stat) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- B: --- Generic: BRBR = 0.00843513 +- 0.00216119(stat) +- 0.001722(MC stat) All: BRBR = 0.0109082 +- 0.00266792(stat) +- 0.00110181(MC stat) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Cheers, --U.