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.