 |
 |
Hi, just a short remark concerning the production. As we mentioned in one of the vub-recoil meetings the mX spectrum unfolding needs the full signal MC (b->ulnu) samples (this includes events without a Breco candidate, which were not written out by default in the signal MC that is currently used by e.g. the mX-q2 analysis). I do not really know when you will actually be producing signal MC, but when you do, it will be good if for the b->ulnu signal MC (with generic other B) all events get written out. Kerstin On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Riccardo Faccini wrote: > Hi Henning, > the piece of work we underestimated at the time of the statement is that > we need to rerun the full sequence to get this done. This means that we > need to implement this missing bit from analysis-20. > > We have two alternatives: > a) add the full sequences with a switch in IslBRecoilUser > b) add the MC filtering in 'or' with our stream in SkimApp > > I would say that maybe 'b' is cleaner, but none of us has experience in > this. Since Daniele's skimming has started we can stay with what we have > for this iteration of MC checks and develop the mising piece of code later > (but not too late, say in a couple of weeks). > > Does this sound ok to everybody? > ciao > > ric > > ______________________________________________________ > Riccardo Faccini > Universita' "La Sapienza" & I.N.F.N. Roma > tel +39/06/49914798 Fax.: +39/06/4957697 > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini > Univ. La Sapienza. 2,Ple Aldo Moro, I-00185 Roma Dipartimento di Fisica > > "I don't understand what you say, but I believe I disagree" > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Henning Ulrik Flaecher wrote: > > > > > Hi Ric, > > > > I would still like to have all the true bsg decays written out in the > > cocktail. As far as I can see it, this is the most straightforward way to > > study photon efficiencies as a function of energy and correct for possible > > biases in a _consistent framework_, without having to start some > > patchworking. I think we learned from the hadr. mass moment analysis that > > this needs to be done. > > From an earlier email I remember that 'filtering on the truth block > > requires little more work but is technically feasible'. > > > > I realise that it takes longer to run over all cocktail events as the > > Breco candidate needs to be reconstructed but suppose that that was also > > the case in the summer 2002 production. > > Then, it took me (alone) 1 or 2 days to run over all the available > > cocktail, ~3.5M events, so this shouldn't delay the production much. > > > > Cheers, > > Henning > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Riccardo Faccini wrote: > > > > > today we had a meeting to discuss details of the production. It was agreed > > > that : > > > - we will run on CM2 skimmed collections as much as possible and resort > > > to CM2 unskimmed or CM1 only if stuck. > > > - we will start dumping only skimmed events, in any case. I believe all > > > studies done with 'all signal events' can be done using a combination of > > > GeneratorsQA and ntuples on skimmed events. Please think of it and > > > prepare an argument against this statement: running on unskimmed stuff is > > > extremely painful in CM2 and would also need some code development. > > > - here is the production order. Productions are coordinated by Henning > > > unless otherwise stated > > > * skim cocktail SP5 (Daniele) > > > * run1-3 skimmed > > > Here finishes what is currently available, the rest should be available > > > when the above production is over > > > * SP6 generic MC > > > * run4 (65fb-1) skimmed > > > * SP5 generic MC > > > > > > I would say that we should how long it takes to run the first two items > > > and how much of the rest is available when the first two items are done. > > > > > > > > > - disk space: daniele will partition the available disk while Henning > > > takes care of cleaning the unneeded material > > > > > > ciao > > > ric > > >