[Rivet] Leading neutrinos?

[Frank Siegert]

>> I think the consistent rivet behaviour is to add all neutrinos from SM
>> hadron decays into jets, and to add all and any other WI(M)Ps into the
>> missing ET.
>
> Is that a prescription we can all agree on as a default? I like that it
> pins down the behaviour very concretely.

Obviously it's something that is decided by the experiment which you get 
your measurement from, so not something that *we* (i.e. Rivet) have to 
debate ;)

But since I have the convenor of that measurement at hand, I might as 
well ask: What's the reason for not using all neutrinos in your particle 
level Etmiss definition? Is it convenience for parton level calculators 
(in which case I'd say publish both types) or is there any reason why a 
measurement that uses Etmiss from the final state in a way as close to 
the measurement as possible wouldn't be good?

Cheers,
Frank