 |
 |
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 >>>>>>