 |
 |
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? 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 > > >>> > > >