 |
 |
Hi Wolfgang, > > 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. > > Kerstin, haven't you produced something for this? Which we are not using > at the moment? I am not quite sure I understand your question correctly. I'll try different interpretations - if you meant neither, let me know.... a) As Heiko already said, reweighting the D** in SP5 to get the improved description in SP6 is not really possible, because the low mD** are simply not populated in SP5, so there is nothing we could reweight. b) We are using some reweighting to adjust the ratio of SP5/SP6 in the nonres and resonant signal MC and so that it corresponds to the ratio of Run1-3/Run4. This is what you mention in a later email. This is only for signal MC at this point, though (and when we introduced this, the magic k numbers where adjusted accordingly). c) We have not yet looked at any reweighting of SP5/SP6 for the generic MC to account for differences in overall normalization as far as I know. Cheers, Kerstin