[Rivet] correction on ATLAS_2011_I944826 routine

[Frank Siegert]

Hi Sercan,

Thanks again for the feedback. I have implemented the changes in changeset 3975:

  http://rivet.hepforge.org/trac/changeset/3975

I don't have any possibility to test whether this does something
significantly different from before though. Sercan or Holger, since
you are probably the only two on this list who have run this analysis
before, do you have any chance to check with these changes?

Cheers,
Frank

On 24 October 2012 11:31, Sercan Sen <Sercan.Sen at cern.ch> wrote:
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> what about the "nstable" requirement... does that only look at
> particles >100 MeV?
>
>
> yes, this is what I understand from the paper -- and it's reasonable.
>
> trigger cut is 2.09 < |\eta| < 3.84
> analysis cuts: |\eta| < 2.5, 100*MeV, ....
>
> I think the best way is to use another projection for the trigger
> requirement.
>
> Cheers,
> Sercan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Frank Siegert wrote:
>
> Hi Sercan,
>
> Right. "nstable" part should be in |\eta| < 2.5 . So, if we extend the
>
> rapidity acceptance in the CFS projection, then we should apply a rapidity
>
> cut in the "nstable" part..
>
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> By the way, I don't know if we need 100*MeV for ATLAS MBTS requirement (this
>
> is applied in the current code) ? Probably, we don't need it but this should
>
> be checked by someone from ATLAS..
>
>
> Then again the same follow-up question: If the 100 MeV is not
> necessary for the MBTS trigger requirement (pending confirmation by
> Emily), what about the "nstable" requirement... does that only look at
> particles >100 MeV?
>
> Cheers,
> Frank
>
>