Hi Concezio,
Yes, you are right about the SP8 work. For distinguishing SP5 and SP6
Kerstin did already some work. The run numbers are different in SP5 and
SP6. if (run<3158000) selects SP5 events. I checked it and it works for
signal MC and generic.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Concezio Bozzi wrote:
> Hi all,
> 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...
> Concezio.
>
> Il giorno mer, 19-07-2006 alle 13:03 +0000, Wolfgang Menges ha scritto:
>> Hi Heiko,
>>
>> Heiko Lacker wrote:
>>> Hi Wolfgang,
>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Menges
Queen Mary, University of London SLAC, MS 35
Mile End Road 2575 Sand Hill Road
London, E1 4NS, UK Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA
+44 20 7882 3753 ++1 650 926 8503
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
