[Rivet] DISLepton Class fails to find outgoing lepton

[Andrii Verbytskyi]

Dear Andy,

On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 12:25 +0000, Andy Buckley wrote:
> Andrii, when in a hole it's a good idea to stop digging. Marian did
> not reject your help, he tried it and found (for his configuration,
> which can maybe be refined) that it did not work. In any case, the
> problem was in an aggressive and personalised response -- which is
> *never* appropriate -- rather than in the scientific merits which I'm
> sure we can debate at length without issue. I suggest we move on, with
> the rules of conduct now made explicit.
> 
I have nothing against Marian, the response was not personal at all.
 I sincerely ask not to read it as personal.

> On the question at hand, obviously the methodology was not designed
> with fiducial reinterpretation in mind, so we have to do something
> approximate. I have coded up a "generator definition" using fs leptons
> directly connected to the hard scattering -- which can be done safely.
> I hope this is unambiguous in the vast majority of cases. In case of
> ambiguity, it chooses the highest energy lepton. Would you be able to
> test this with your setup, Andrii? 

No. No time for that. Sorry.

> Yes it's more work (but that's what we do, isn't it?) but I for one
> would be very grateful, as we have been before for your
> contributions. 

Andy, as you know I rarely do *bug reports* without subsequent patches,
as many other people do. Sending patches I hope developers will
implement fixes and deliver software faster. For the greater good. But
once code is accepted it is  up to authors (I am not an author) to
understand it (at least a bit), support it and do tests. Otherwise it
looks like outsourcing of work to other people. I'm not using Rivet for
anything *in production* and for rare checks of  DIS I have private
version, so there is no reason for me to get more work. 
Yes, I can explain potential problems with that or another approach, but
that requires some time and, of course, some understanding of DIS is
needed from your side. That *cannot* be obtained in mail exchange, one
has to read papers and formulae. A lot. Unfortunately. And I cannot do
that for you. All I can -- suggest you some starting list (see in the
end) but *please* don't read that as an  act of aggression or  some
*personal* thing.



> And I don't think this is a circular and endless argument; actually,
> it feels to be like we have something closer to workable.
> 

Best regards,
Andrii

> 
1)Good, but some formulae in outdated notation
https://lib-extopc.kek.jp/preprints/PDF/1992/9209/9209099.pdf 

2)Why one would not like to go "experimental way", ZEUS version
http://inspirehep.net/record/394224?ln=en  just too look at it. how
strongly it is related to detector and how many conditions are there

3)Random papers with kinematic reconstruction description
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.6376.pdf e.g. page 5 is relevant
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.03421.pdf e.g. Sec. 2.2
Yes, sort to say any DIS paper contains something like that.

4)Example with QED corrections and high Q2, see tables
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/0701039.pdf
Hannes is right.