[Rivet] [Rivet-svn] r2095 - in trunk: data/plotinfo src/Analyses

[Hendrik Hoeth]

Thus spake Frank Siegert (frank.siegert at durham.ac.uk):

> Now I'm completely confused: I thought that's what we agreed not to
> do, and weren't you especially in favour of that decision?

In this analysis the data is indeed normalised to the cross-section, so
following the logic that we should normalise everything to cross-section
where the data is given in terms of cross-section, this change in the
.cc file is correct. That is different from trying to
cross-section-normalise event shape variables where the data is
normalised to 1, and then normalise the plot to 1 afterwards.

Having said that, I still think that's a absolutely stupid thing to
normalise this plot to cross-section. Nobody who looks at this plot is
interested in its normalisation. Everything people want to see is
whether the peak is at the right position and has the right shape. I
think it is plain wrong to blindly normalise everything to cross-section
where the data is given in units of cross-section, but that's been the
decision here, hasn't it? And in order not to mess our poor users too
much, I added the two lines to the .plot file to repair at least the
plotted result.

    Hendrik  (unhappy)

-- 
"Two equal numbers are equivalent, even if they come from two
 different people one of which you don't like"
(MLM about the theoretical top cross-section, in a meeting
about theoretical uncertainties on the top mass)