 |
 |
Hi Wolfgang, On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Wolfgang Menges wrote: > Hi Concezio, > > Concezio Bozzi wrote: > > > At this point I am puzzled, and tempted to drop SP5 completely since it > > seems that the effect due to D** is bigger than any detector-conditions > > effect. > > I think this is the wrong way to go. You have to write this down and > everybody will asked why you do this. And it means that we don't > understand the D**. > > > Or we could have a other/vcb ratio which depends on run period > > (not easy to implement in VVF), or fit the run periods and combine the > > results (we lose some statistical power due to the mES fits on data). > > Any opinions? > > There are two ways out. Either we switch to release 18 MC/SP8 which will > have better D** description, better other things, but we have to adjust > a lot of (more or less hard) coded numbers. But it will also solve the > SP5/SP6 difference for the signal MC. We have to calculate new weights > and magic factors. The other way is to apply some reweigting for SP5 to > get the same as SP6. This is in principle not possible as there are D** mass regions in SP6 which have not been populated in SP5 :-( Cheers, Heiko > Kerstin, haven't you produced something for this? Which we are not using > at the moment? > > Cheers, > > Wolfgang > >