 |
 |
So, it seems pretty clear that the RecoilAnalysis version is the well-maintained version. I can't even recall doing a migration or in which direction i migrated it. I assume from VubAna->RecoilAna for the introduction of the recoil analysis base class. I'll go through the 2 and bring each up to speed with the other. Ed On Friday 07 January 2005 10:31 am, Kerstin Tackmann allegedly wrote: > Hi all, > > I made some changes to recoilDSys in RecoilAnalysis last February, but I > did not touch the recoilDSys in VubAnalysis. > I posted a short description of the changes is posted here: > http://babar-hn.slac.stanford.edu:5090/HyperNews/get/semi_lept_decays/4.htm >l > > But since it refers to the AWG meeting before the posting, it might be a > little unclear. I made three types of changes to the code: > > 1) I changed the weights that were used for the B->Xclnu BFs according to > the values of the AWG-reweighting page. Since the uncertainties there were > asymmetric I implemented an asymmetric Gaussian in the Brandomize function > for the variation of the BFs. > > 2) I had problems with how the random numbers were thrown, since it used > the time to set the seed and when jobs would start too shortly after > another they would give me the same results (which is obviously not what > we want). So I changed it so you could pass a number that determined how > the seed got set (in pratice it throws random numbers for 10*the number > you pass it and uses the random numbers it throws after throwing these > 10*x away, and accordingly for the D weights). So you would call > VirVubFitter with -Sys i, i=3...52 or so and were sure to get different > random numbers thrown per job (and I made checks the distributions of the > weights looks ok doing it this way and to not have some strange > behavior). > > 3) This is for the unfolding, so we could write out the weights into files > and read them in later again when running in our binning. > > This version was tagged KT022304. I do not know if Concezio's changes were > made after this. > > Kerstin > > On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Concezio Bozzi wrote: > > Hi all, > > in VirVubFitter we have been using RecoilAnalysis/recoilDSys, but we > > also did (more than 1 year ago) detailed checks with > > VubAnalysis/recoilDSys, which I believe gave consistent results. > > At the moment we cannot check the details in our logbooks (both Virginia > > and I are not in Ferrara), we'll do that on Monday. > > Ciao, Concezio. > > > > Daniele del Re wrote: > > >>yes, in principle you are right. However, VubAnalysis/fitNtp.cc > > >>includes the other version (the one in VubAnalysis). So it would be > > >>nice to have THE person to know sign off with a better CL than "I > > >>presume". Are the differences between the two versions understood? > > > > > >VirVubFitter results were consistent with the fitNtp ones (right > > >Virginia) and fitNtp is not used since ages. > > > > > >This is what I know. I am noticing that the VubAnalysis version was the > > >result of the migration done by Ed. Probably Ed himself knows if there > > > was an original large difference between the two. After the first > > > commit there have been just two versions with fixes by Kerstin and > > > Concezio. > > > > > > Daniele