 |
 |
Hi, Kerstin Tackmann wrote: > Hi, > >> A couple of warnings >> >> 1) I previously run the fits WITHOUT the B&D reweighting (-b -d flags), >> so I run them again and the ratio on the entire sample went from 0.55 to >> 0.60. I hope Kerstin was more clever than me and run with -b and -d ;-) > I did run with -d -b. > >> 2) Wolfgang mentions that the signal has been reweigthed to match the >> Run1+2/Run3+4 luminosity ratios ub data. A point related to this is: >> what happens if you run on Run1+2 or Run4 only? > As long as the magic k numbers are correct, applying the weights to SP5 > when running on Run1+2 should not hurt I think, as it only changes the > effective number of events (as most of the other reweightings do), but it > keeps the relative fraction as we want them. As Kerstin said, the SP5/SP6 scaling should be save. There is no scaling on SP6. The scaling on SP6 will not hurt as the magic k factor is also calculated taking the run period into account (I hope). > >> In this case you should >> not apply any reweighting at all and you should also use different magic >> factors. Did anybody check this? > I did recompute the magic k numbers when we introduced this SP5/SP6 > correction. I am sure I did it for the full statistics and I just > crosschecked with my notes that I also recomputed the numbers for the > individual run periods as they are in wfermifile.dat, assuming the SP5 vs. > SP6 reweighting will be done independent of the run flag. So I think > things are used consistently here. For the new weights/weight files, the wfermifile is not used any more and the magic factor is calculated on the fly. Please check the output of the log file. BUT I check the code with Kerstin against her numbers. Cheers, Wolfgang