Hi Kerstin,

> > have you compared the log files?
> Where can I find them? I would like to compare them.

for that particular file the log file is not there (actually for all the
new2... ones). Alessio, do you know where they are?
BTW for other jobs you have them

look at


you can compare on those.

> > I did not get this but if you have the same result it's fine?
> So far we hope so. As long as we only use the events tree in the reduced
> ntuples we should be able to look at brecoflav to see whether there was a
> Breco or not and if there was none, we should not use any variables
> containing information about the decay mode of the Breco and so on. At
> least this is our hope.

I am still confused about this.  Sorry but I am a bit slow on this.

> > > We try to run and just write out only the events with Breco
> > > candidate and compare with your root-tuples, we already find differences
> >
> > this is already the case... but I am probably missing something here
> > I see the same numbers that you have shown before. Can you explain again
> > which is the difference between the two cases?
> First we modified IbuIsl.tcl such that all events got written out (also
> events without BReco candidate). Since we found the inconsistencies with
> your files (s.a.) we tried to write out only the events having a Breco
> candidate to make sure that our change in IbuIsl.tcl did not cause the
> differences. We still saw the inconsistencies (and the same numbers as
> before, which i guess means that events without Breco candidate do not
> get a pcms>0 and no entries for mode(Ch)B(0)).

I suppose that the way recoilNtp (and anaQA) is done, requires the
presence of a breco to write out the reduced root file. Or at least you
will not get results that make sense since pcms if calculated in the rest
frame of the recoiling B (that is calculated starting from the breco one).