From gusbroo@fnal.gov Mon May  3 14:23:10 2004
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:48:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo@fnal.gov>
To: Gordon Watts <gwatts@phys.washington.edu>
Cc: Marco Verzocchi <mverzocc@fnal.gov>, d0dfwg@fnal.gov
Subject: RE: Comments from the WZ group on data format issues

Hi Gordon,

>   I'm wearing bID convener hat for this email...
>
> >chunks.  As we know, it is unavoidable that some corrections and
> algorithm
> >refinements are applied post-reco however, and it's important that we
> >rationalize the way this is done.
>
> Do you consider running at the d0correct level acceptable as opposed to
> in reco? The reason is our tuning takes place only after we have large
> samples available to us, which means that most if not all the data will
> have to be reco-ed before we are ready to freeze the algorithms and the
> parameters.

Yes and no.  I think our reconstruction software is now reasonably
advanced on the asymptotic curve and a base version of b-tagging should be
included in reco with a corresponding chunk, and then corresponding info
on the thumbnail.  Clearly, with a new reconstruction version one hopes to
get some improvement and a new tuning is necessary, which then takes some
time.  But this leaves the door open for people that want to use the
results straight out of reco, possibly at the cost of some percentage in
efficiency and/or purity.  Others will work on and use a more refined
version which is more appropriate for their analysis.

D0correct is a necessity, but we need to be careful about not making it a
default stage for running algorithms.  I can think of multiple reasons for
that: speed, reproducibility, ...


Gustaaf