[Rivet] ATLAS ttbar+jets analysis

[Andy Buckley]

On 22/07/14 11:56, Alexander Grohsjean wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> I was prodividing the tools that we changed in a tar bal with just the
> modified/added files.
> I summarized quickly the changes in a README in the main path.
> So I must admit that I am not sure what is missing here. Diff should be
> very easy to run and to
> see the changes providing this?

The issue is that we need a minimal diff against the latest version --
ideally against the 2.1.x branch head since other things have changed
and we don't want to just copy your files in place and overwrite those
other developments.

> Changing names "FromElecroweakDecay" is perfectly fine with us, these were
> just historically.
> I started developing in 2.1.0, then updated to 2.1.1 at some point but
> didn't switch to 2.1.2 as this happened after my validation. Should I
> now run it
> in 2.1.2?

Since it's not just a new analysis, working from the *development*
version (i.e. the target for 2.1.3, which has evolved since 2.1.2) would
help us a lot with integrating these changes.

You can get the branch head like this:
hg clone https://rivet.hepforge.org/hg/rivet -b release-2-0
then make changes and commit them if you need, and point us at your
cloned repo when ready. Ask if you have any questions!

> For validation, I attached the same distributions that we have in the
> paper (blue and red with ct10).
> Should I provide the log-files from object by object comparisons?
> These are the internal notes:
> Jet multiplicity supporting note
> https://cds.cern.ch/record/1532076
> Jet pT supporting note
> https://cds.cern.ch/record/1545583

I think that's for ATLAS internal validation purposes... I'm wearing my
Rivet hat here, which means that I assume you and Roman have checked
everything and we just need to deal with the technicalities. Although
since there are new projections we will be pickier than with just
accepting a new analysis ;-)

By the way, I saw a report from Stefano Camarda that at least the
important ttbar jet veto analysis (and maybe also the ttbar jet shapes)
do not properly require "prompt" leptons and hence the results differ
due to the allowed W decay channels. Could you also fix these to use the
FromElectroweakDecay projection?

Thanks,
Andy


> Am 21.07.2014 20:59, schrieb roman lysak:
>>
>>   Hi Andy,
>>
>>
>>
>> On 21/07/14 16:14, Andy Buckley wrote:
>>> Hi Roman,
>>>
>>> I've seen this analysis already and realised the issue. This is a case
>>> where it would have been nice if we could have worked with the authors
>>> to discuss the new projections and get them directly into the Rivet
>>> trunk rather than need to do it retrospectively.
>>>
>>> It would help us if you/they could provide diffs with respect to the
>>> latest Rivet version -- have these modifications been made on top of
>>> version 2.1.2?
>> they have been made w.r.t. version 2.1.1, as far as I know.
>>
>>>   We need to make sure that we don't undo our own
>>> developments when merging this. Having looked at the source of the
>>> FromElectroweakDecay projection, it doesn't actually do what that name
>>> suggests, so I would like to change that to match the sort of scheme
>>> that we've used for Particle.fromDecay(), or perhaps define IsPrompt /
>>> IsNonPrompt particle classifiers.
>>>
>>> Getting a new Rivet out with these features and some others in time for
>>> the BOOST conference in mid-August is high on my priority list, so I'll
>>> be back in touch. But if you can talk with Will and Alexander (right?)
>> right, cc-ing to them, so that the communication is hopefully quicker
>>
>>> to make minimal patches (or ideally an hg branch that we can clone,
>>> modify and merge) that we can apply, that would help a lot.
>> Alex, Will, could you try to do as suggested by Andy, i.e. at least
>> try to compare to Rivet 2.1.2?
>>
>> Thanks a lot,
>>   Roman
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21/07/14 15:03, Roman Lysak wrote:
>>>>    Dear Rivet authors,
>>>>
>>>> in ATLAS, we've got another analysis we would like to eventually get
>>>> included into Rivet (right now, it's being validated): ttbar+jets
>>>> analysis.
>>>> However, while implementing this analysis, the authors made changes to
>>>> some core Rivet routines (FastJet, Jet, and DressedLepton projections)
>>>> and also added one new Projection (FromElectroweakDecay). I'm attaching
>>>> the changes they made.
>>>>
>>>> We would like to ask you, what would be the best way to proceed:
>>>> whether
>>>> you would be willing to accept any of the updates to the core routines
>>>> or you would prefer to have everything implemented inside the analysis
>>>> routine (in the second case, the validation/re-validation will probably
>>>> take longer, obviously :)).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>    Roman
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Rivet mailing list
>>>> Rivet at projects.hepforge.org
>>>> https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 


-- 
Dr Andy Buckley, Royal Society University Research Fellow
Particle Physics Expt Group, University of Glasgow / PH Dept, CERN