Hi,
> Hi Antonio,
>
> that looks quite good wrt the fitted event yield on MC and also wrt to the
> pulls in data fit. I would vote to stick to this fit configuration and
> move on so that we can check now if a MM2 scan shows reasonable stability
> in the BF extraction.
>
> A few questions:
> 1) Do you have also a non-extended chi^2 fit on data?
Francesca has asked for this too... I'm producing it
> 2) I'm a bit surprised when comparing your fit on data with the plot shown
> at April 19: The statistics is not exactly the same (order 20% difference).
> Why is that?
I think it is due to the different tuning of parameters. Looking at the
plot of April 19th we can see that the amount of event fitted by
crystall ball in the signal region is greater than on the last plot. So
the number of signal events is lower.
In addition for the fit on data of april 19th I set the endpoint for
Argus and Cristall ball fixed, which is not so good when fitting data,
is that right?
So I would say that the latest fit (5 may) has more correct assumptions.
> 3) In addition, the deviation in the plot of April 19 looks worse.
> However, the chi^2 of that fit is significantly better compared to the
> current number of 6.48. Do we understand why?
I would say that this is due to the worsening of the fit on the
endpoint. If you look at the pulls for the latest fit you can see that
the latest 4 bins have higher values than the ones on the plot of 19
April...
>
> 4) Do we need a crosscheck wrt different run periods?
> I.e. check if the machinery works when fitting on Run1/2, Run3 and
> Run4?
>
I hope it will work even on smaller datasets! Anyway I will check!
Ciao
Antonio
