 |
 |
OK, so we can use the run number in VirClass::Loop and use two separate weights for D**/D+D* in SP5 and SP6. Could you remind me why we need to reweight also signal MC? Are there any changes in signal MC between SP5 and SP6? Concezio. Il giorno mer, 19-07-2006 alle 14:26 +0000, Wolfgang Menges ha scritto: > 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 > >> > > >