Print

---

Hi Antonio,

I'm a puzzled by the number of signal in the data fit: 54947 ± 2997  	
On May 11th it was:                                    97652 ± 1070

About the combinatoric BG: I'm still not convinced why we need to fit
two contributions. My Original understanding of Concezio's proposal
was that non-BBbar events are mixed in but that only one ARGUS function
will be used. Concezio?

And then a question: Does this fit already use Wolfgang's recipe taking 
into account the 40 different ARGUS functions?

Cheers,
Heiko


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
> >>>>>>
>