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

[Frank Siegert]

Hendrik Hoeth, Wednesday 25 November 2009:
> 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.

Ah, now I understand, what you are doing (not that I like it though).

> 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.

So count me as a user whose plots are probably going to break, because I 
would have a line in my make-plots configuration file which sets the 
correct kfactor for that process.
If we are doing the change on which we agreed, I think we should do it 
consistently. Otherwise it's very difficult to interpret plots in the end, 
because you always have to wonder whether they've already had a kfactor 
applied or not.
And the users for who it really is going to break, e.g. for tuning, aren't 
going to be helped with your lines in the .plot file, are they?

Frank