\documentclass[]{beamer}
\setbeamertemplate{navigation symbols}{}
\usepackage{beamerthemesplit}
\useoutertheme{infolines}
\usecolortheme{dolphin}
\usetheme{Warsaw}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{amssymb,amsmath}
\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{hyperref}
 
 
%\usetheme{Boadilla}
 
%\beamersetuncovermixins{\opaqueness<1>{25}}{\opaqueness<2->{15}}
\title{Updates from Krakow}  
\author{Marcin Chrzaszcz}
 
\date{\today} 
 
\begin{document}
 
{
\institute{Institute of Nuclear Physics PAN}
\setbeamertemplate{footline}{} 
\begin{frame}
  \titlepage
\end{frame}
}
 
\institute{IFJ PAN}
 
 
 
%tutaj mamy pierwsza strone
 
 
\section[Outline]{}
\begin{frame}
\tableofcontents
\end{frame}
 
%normal slides
\begin{frame}\frametitle{FITS}
 
Marc sugestions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Check with different strategies
( RooFit::Strategy(4), etc.)
\item Change the mass window and see what happens. 
Mark said that if the fit will still be rising you have to prove, by changing the window get the rising fit and compare the expected number of events. If they don't change much it's ok.
\end{enumerate}
\end{frame}
 
\begin{frame}\frametitle{1st Point}
 
I checked all possible strategies, with different ranges(even 100 times to big). The fit is stable as hell =)
\end{frame}
 
\begin{frame}\frametitle{FITS}
 
 
\begin{columns}[c]
	
\newline	
\column{3.5in}
	\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{160_195.png}
\column{1.5in}
\begin{block}{Standard fit}
Not changed mass window
\end{block}
\end{columns}
\end{frame}
 
 
\begin{frame}\frametitle{FITS}
 
 
 
 
 
\begin{columns}[c]
	
\newline	
\column{3.5in}
	\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{b.png}
\column{1.5in}
\begin{block}{Different mass window}
Throwing away only one marked point gives flat distribution.
 
\end{block}
\end{columns}
\end{frame}
 
 
 
\begin{frame}
\begin{columns}[c]
	
\newline	
\column{3.5in}
	\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{a.png}
\column{1.5in}
\begin{block}{Different mass window}
Throwing away more point gives us droping distributions.
 
\end{block}
\end{columns}
\end{frame}
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
\begin{frame}\frametitle{FITS}
\begin{columns}[c]
	
\newline	
\column{3.5in}
	\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{pm80.png}
\column{1.5in}
\begin{block}{Different mass window}
$80MeV$ Mass window.
\end{block}
\end{columns}
\end{frame}
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
\begin{frame}\frametitle{Summary}
\begin{enumerate}
\item	I tested this in every way I could. 
\item	Consulted with coleagues that are doing fits all the time(they didn't find any mistake).
\item 	The most important: Different mass ranges change the expected number of backgrounds eventes arround $5\%$ so it's not relewant.
	\end{enumerate}
	
	
	
\end{frame}
	
\begin{frame}\frametitle{News about the production}
 
	Scripts are ready. From Patric I got the following version:
	Gauss v41r1
	Boole v23r1
	Brunel v41r1p1
	
	 I reserwed 108 cores. LHCb soft is ready and running.
	 Additional 40 cores one different cluster also will be used.
	 I propose first to make 100k sample and test it.
	
	On night from 23/24 Feb I started to run small production to see in everything runs smootly.
	The 1M sample should be ready in 9-10 days from now.
	
	
\end{frame}
 
 
 
\end{document}