 |
 |
Hi Antonio, On Tue, 16 May 2006, Antonio Petrella wrote: > 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. > How is the signal yield actually defined? I thought by integrating the area under the green curve. > > 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.... I assume that the two ARGUS functions have slightly different endpoints and hence can partly compensate problems in the BG region which would explain the improvement in the chi^2. Cheers, Heiko > 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 > >>>>>>>> >