Hi,

 I did few checks on the disagreement in the signal MC efficiency
observed by Roberto (as output of the fitter).

 I used the following trees:

 old prod:
 /nfs/farm/babar/recoil/Vub_incl/root/anaQA-r00/csx-vubnre.root

 new prod:
 files in
 /u/br/sacco/work2/test-21/workdir/2575/root/*root

 Just by counting I get:

 ----------
 after lepton cut (i.e.
 "vub&&mes>5.27&&intpur>.5&&pcms>1&&lcharge+brecoflav==0" )

  N(b0) old = 685
  N(b0) new = 1647
  N(bch) old = 1140
  N(bch) new = 2391

 ----------
 after all cuts (i.e.
 "vub&&mes>5.27&&intpur>.5&&mm2<.5&&pcms>1&&mxhadfit>0&&mxhadfit<5.&&
  brecocharge+xcharge==0&&lcharge+brecoflav==0&&
  (wdeltam<-3.||brecocharge!=0)" )

  N(b0) old = 209
  N(b0) new = 469
  N(bch) old = 440
  N(bch) new = 889

  (I had to put brecocharge+xcharge+lcharge==0 for the new production,
   I thought this was fixed...)


 Then the efficiency is

  eps_ub0(old) = 0.305
  eps_ub0(new) = 0.285
  eps_ubch(old) = 0.386
  eps_ubch(new) = 0.372


 If I add the mx cut (mxhadfit<1.55)

  eps_totb0(old) = 0.213
  eps_totb0(new) = 0.211
  eps_totbch(old) = 0.287
  eps_totbch(new) = 0.265

 Conclusions:
 - the efficiencies for CM1 and CM2 are pretty consistent
 - the problem is not in the production but in the fit machinery
 - the efficiencies I get are very different from the ones shown by
   Virginia (
  http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~azzolini/Mxhad-Mxhadfit.txt
  table 1 in the crosschecks. ) while for the efficiency for the hybrid
  are similar.
  I wonder if the reweighting in the fit is applied even for the
  pure non-resonant case (it should not happen)


   Daniele


> I have just posted my contribution to today's meeting:
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~sacco/mxhad/Mxhad-Mxhadfit.txt
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roberto
>