[Rivet] correction on ATLAS_2011_I944826 routine

[Sercan Sen]

Hi Frank, 

below is the output for 50K events. ratio plots are not filled in the *trunk* version. I see the Scatter2D etc. but maybe it's still in development in YODA or you just forget to fill this histo.............

http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/~ssen/LPCC/PUBLIC/atlas944826/plots/

OLD

Cross-section = 7.132596e+10 pb
Rivet.Analysis.Handler: INFO  Finalising analyses
Rivet.Analysis.ATLAS_2011_I944826: INFO  Events that pass the trigger: 37993
Rivet.Analysis.ATLAS_2011_I944826: INFO  Kshort events: 26040
Rivet.Analysis.ATLAS_2011_I944826: INFO  Lambda events: 3132
Rivet.Analysis.Handler: INFO  Processed 50000 events

NEW

Cross-section = 7.132596e+10 pb
Rivet.Analysis.Handler: INFO  Finalising analyses
Rivet.Analysis.ATLAS_2011_I944826: INFO  Events that pass the trigger: 42670
Rivet.Analysis.ATLAS_2011_I944826: INFO  Kshort events: 26621
Rivet.Analysis.ATLAS_2011_I944826: INFO  Lambda events: 3185
Rivet.Analysis.ATLAS_2011_I944826: INFO  This is the modified analysis, revision 3975
Rivet.Analysis.Handler: INFO  Processed 50000 events

Cheers,
Sercan






On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:03 PM, Frank Siegert wrote:

> Hi Sercan,
> 
> So this basically means that in your sample the K_S (and Lambda?) have
> been set stable and don't decay. Currently, the analysis requires them
> to have a given range of transverse flight distance before decaying,
> so clearly this kind of analysis can't be used with Monte-Carlo
> samples that set the K_S and Lambda stable. Whether this
> implementation (cutting on flight distance at the particle level) is
> correct for that analysis would have to be answered by somebody more
> familiar with it -- Emily?
> 
> Frank
> 
> On 26 October 2012 13:13, Sercan Sen <Sercan.Sen at cern.ch> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello Frank,
>> 
>> I didn't run this analysis before. However, I have been running some other
>> analyses and add this one to the chain now to see if there is any
>> difference.
>> 
>> I've just run over 150K events (INEL Z2*) both the previous version and the
>> new version in the trunk, but there is no event survive. Most of the events
>> are rejected by the flightDistance cut of Kaon/Lambda which always returns
>> as 1e+07. with hepmc 2.06.08 and unit is mm..
>> 
>> Just for my curiosity, I debug a little bit and return the pdg id of the
>> particle from getPerpFlightDistance function where it truly returns this
>> before the "if (decV)" scope. Events never go inside decV scope and
>> therefore the value of the flighttd which is 1e+07 is dummy in the current
>> code. So, all events are failed...
>> 
>> by the way, as expected we have more events after the correction on the MBTS
>> cuts and I think this will  not be only statistical effect.
>> 
>> * ==================
>> 
>> OLD VERSION
>> 
>> Cross-section = 7.130367e+10 pb
>> Rivet.Analysis.Handler: INFO  Finalising analyses
>> Rivet.Analysis.ATLAS_2011_I944826: INFO  Events that pass the trigger:
>> 112103
>> Rivet.Analysis.ATLAS_2011_I944826: INFO  Kshort events: 0
>> Rivet.Analysis.ATLAS_2011_I944826: INFO  Lambda events: 0
>> Rivet.Analysis.Handler: INFO  Processed 150000 events
>> 
>> NEW VERSION
>> 
>> Cross-section = 7.130367e+10 pb
>> Rivet.Analysis.Handler: INFO  Finalising analyses
>> Rivet.Analysis.ATLAS_2011_I944826: INFO  Events that pass the trigger:
>> 127174
>> Rivet.Analysis.ATLAS_2011_I944826: INFO  Kshort events: 0
>> Rivet.Analysis.ATLAS_2011_I944826: INFO  Lambda events: 0
>> Rivet.Analysis.ATLAS_2011_I944826: INFO  This is the modified analysis,
>> revision 3975
>> Rivet.Analysis.Handler: INFO  Processed 150000 events
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Sercan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Oct 25, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Frank Siegert wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Sercan,
>> 
>> Thanks again for the feedback. I have implemented the changes in changeset
>> 3975:
>> 
>> http://rivet.hepforge.org/trac/changeset/3975
>> 
>> I don't have any possibility to test whether this does something
>> significantly different from before though. Sercan or Holger, since
>> you are probably the only two on this list who have run this analysis
>> before, do you have any chance to check with these changes?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Frank
>> 
>> On 24 October 2012 11:31, Sercan Sen <Sercan.Sen at cern.ch> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Frank,
>> 
>> 
>> what about the "nstable" requirement... does that only look at
>> 
>> particles >100 MeV?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> yes, this is what I understand from the paper -- and it's reasonable.
>> 
>> 
>> trigger cut is 2.09 < |\eta| < 3.84
>> 
>> analysis cuts: |\eta| < 2.5, 100*MeV, ....
>> 
>> 
>> I think the best way is to use another projection for the trigger
>> 
>> requirement.
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Sercan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Oct 23, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Frank Siegert wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Sercan,
>> 
>> 
>> Right. "nstable" part should be in |\eta| < 2.5 . So, if we extend the
>> 
>> 
>> rapidity acceptance in the CFS projection, then we should apply a rapidity
>> 
>> 
>> cut in the "nstable" part..
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks for the clarification.
>> 
>> 
>> By the way, I don't know if we need 100*MeV for ATLAS MBTS requirement (this
>> 
>> 
>> is applied in the current code) ? Probably, we don't need it but this should
>> 
>> 
>> be checked by someone from ATLAS..
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Then again the same follow-up question: If the 100 MeV is not
>> 
>> necessary for the MBTS trigger requirement (pending confirmation by
>> 
>> Emily), what about the "nstable" requirement... does that only look at
>> 
>> particles >100 MeV?
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Frank
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>