 |
 |
Hi Heiko, > I'm a puzzled by the number of signal in the data fit: 54947 ± 2997 > On May 11th it was: 97652 ± 1070 Yes. The problem on the latest fit is that the Crystal Ball contribution is higher: 89518. On May 11th it was 43230: the difference would cover the gap. This difference is also present in the mES range [5.27,5.29]: for the Crystal ball yield we have 63467 while on May 11th we had 30650. > About the combinatoric BG: I'm still not convinced why we need to fit > two contributions. I thought it would have been useful if we had found a different shape in the ARGUS function for non-BBbar events... anwyay, the fit on data with only one ARGUS function for combinatoric BG is the one on May 11th. I'm running the fit on MC right now. > And then a question: Does this fit already use Wolfgang's recipe taking > into account the 40 different ARGUS functions? No, it doesn't.... Antonio > 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 >>>>>>>>