 |
 |
Hi Concezio, > if we stay with SP5/6 I think that reweighting the D** wrt D+D* > separately for SP5 and SP6 would be the best we can do. But this means > that we need to know whether we are analysing SP5 or SP6 events when we > build the datasets in VVF, which I am not sure how to do. > Using SP8 means a lot of extra work/checks/tunings. > However it is not clear to me why when we compute the D** reweighting we > get 1 for SP5 and 0.83 for SP6, whereas we get 0.55 for (sp5+sp6). Well, > the fit might be just readjusting itself... Would we actually want to trust it if it is readjusting by so much? Kerstin > > >> 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 :-( > > > > > > > That is a pity. So, my suggestion is to stick with SP5 AND SP6 or switch > > to SP8. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Wolfgang > > > >