<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Roman,<br>
<br>
it's all good. There have been changes but Christian is already
aware.<br>
I just wasn't able to reproduce anything from the plugin alone and
never<br>
saw any plots hence needed some clarification.<br>
But it's all understood now and the plugin is in trivet trunk,<br>
just in time for the release. <br>
<br>
Thanks for your work,<br>
<br>
Holger<br>
<br>
<br>
On 23/03/15 10:43, roman lysak wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:550FEE51.10904@fzu.cz" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<br>
Hi Holger,<br>
<br>
we did the validation using this dataset:<br>
<br>
<span>
<pre>mc12_8TeV.181085.PowhegPythia8_AU2CT10_HJJ_MINLO_ggH125_gamgam.evgen.EVNT.e2005/
</pre>
</span>The validation plots are in the attachment. <br>
Note that, it's only relevant to compare certain plots where the
prediction in the paper is using MinLO.<br>
<br>
However, I'm a bit confused here since I don't understand what
exactly are you trying to do.<br>
My understanding was that it's the responsibility of the
experiment to provide the validated analysis from the physics
point of view (which we were doing). <br>
I understand the Rivet authors do the checks/improvements from
technical side (although we do it partially too).<br>
If this has changed and we don't need to do such validation
anymore, let us know (cc-ing Chris who has been doing this
lately). <br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Roman<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 22/03/15 12:56, Florian
Bernlochner wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFOWsL27K-aVyYC+dQagn-j3EQn5bBSqtXizSfbiS=cXex5=fg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Guys,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'll also include Roman. Maybe he still has some of his
validation plots. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Florian</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 22 March 2015 at 12:09, Holger
Schulz <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:holger.schulz@durham.ac.uk"
target="_blank">holger.schulz@durham.ac.uk</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span> On 20/03/15
16:49, Michaela Queitsch-Maitland wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Hi Holger,
The routine was validated using a gluon fusion MiNLO HJJ sample:
mc12_8TeV.181085.PowhegPythia8_AU2CT10_HJJ_MINLO_ggH125_gamgam.evgen.EVNT.e2005
scaled to XS*BR = 19.27*0.00228. No other production modes were included for the validation. The results from the routine were compared against the analysis code (used to derive the unfolding factors for the data) with very good agreement. The plots in the publication were also reproduced by Roman Lysak (ex ATLAS Rivet contact) using the routine. Unfortunately I don’t have the plots from the ‘final’ version of the routine — Roman would have those.
Let me know if you need anymore information.</pre>
</blockquote>
</span> Hi Michaela,<br>
<br>
I was trying to find the generator setup bits for this
sample looking into AMI and the svn browser of MC job
options.<br>
It would seem as if powheg (==powhegbox???) parton
level outputs (.LHEF) were simply showered with
Pythia8<br>
allowing only for H->gamma gamma decays handled by
pythia8. What I am unable to find are the processes<br>
included when running powheg (box?).<br>
<br>
<br>
These are the JOs:<br>
<br>
<ol>
<li><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/atlasoff/browser/Generators/MC12JobOptions/trunk/share/DSID181xxx/MC12.181085.PowhegPythia8_AU2CT10_HJJ_MINLO_ggH125_gamgam.py"
target="_blank">https://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/atlasoff/browser/Generators/MC12JobOptions/trunk/share/DSID181xxx/MC12.181085.PowhegPythia8_AU2CT10_HJJ_MINLO_ggH125_gamgam.py</a></li>
<li><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/atlasoff/browser/Generators/MC12JobOptions/trunk/common/PowhegPythia8_AU2_CT10_Common.py"
target="_blank">https://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/atlasoff/browser/Generators/MC12JobOptions/trunk/common/PowhegPythia8_AU2_CT10_Common.py</a></li>
<li><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/atlasoff/browser/Generators/MC12JobOptions/trunk/common/Pythia8_Powheg.py"
target="_blank">https://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/atlasoff/browser/Generators/MC12JobOptions/trunk/common/Pythia8_Powheg.py</a></li>
<li><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/atlasoff/browser/Generators/MC12JobOptions/trunk/common/Pythia8_LHEF.py"
target="_blank">https://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/atlasoff/browser/Generators/MC12JobOptions/trunk/common/Pythia8_LHEF.py</a>
----> brick wall</li>
</ol>
As you can see, the latter just looks for files
commonly named "<span>events.lhe" --- with no
information whatsoever what these contain.<br>
<br>
This is a bit dangerous. I would assume that the
information on the processes switched on when
generating these files is<br>
stored some other place. Maybe ami would be a good
place to store this kind of information globally.<br>
<br>
So yeah, at this point I cannot consider your plugin
validated as I cannot reproduce your results.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Holger<br>
<br>
</span>
<div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Cheers,
Michaela
On 19 Mar 2015, at 20:07, Frank Siegert <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Frank.Siegert@cern.ch" target="_blank"><Frank.Siegert@cern.ch></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Hi Holger,
with a plain Sherpa H->gamma gamma setup the BRs will be screwed up,
so a factor of 10 can be expected.
There are new options for the upcoming Sherpa 2.2.0 which allow to fix this:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://sherpa.hepforge.org/doc/SHERPA-MC-2.2.0.html#HDH_005fWIDTH" target="_blank">http://sherpa.hepforge.org/doc/SHERPA-MC-2.2.0.html#HDH_005fWIDTH</a>
For Sherpa 2.1.1 you are best off running without BR weights
(HDH_BR_WEIGHTS=0) and multiplying with the correct H->gamma gamma BR
manually at the end.
Cheers,
Frank
On 19 March 2015 at 19:54, Holger Schulz <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:holger.schulz@durham.ac.uk" target="_blank"><holger.schulz@durham.ac.uk></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Hi Michaela,
in preparation of tomorrows release of Rivet we are currently validating the
contrib plugins
and I am having trouble with yours.
Maybe you could tell me your validation procedure, i.e. which MC you ran
with what channels
and so forth.
I am seeing a factor of 10 discrapancy in a sherpa generic H->gamma gamma
setup.
Best,
Holger
_______________________________________________
Rivet mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Rivet@projects.hepforge.org" target="_blank">Rivet@projects.hepforge.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet" target="_blank">https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Rivet mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Rivet@projects.hepforge.org" target="_blank">Rivet@projects.hepforge.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet" target="_blank">https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>