[Rivet] correction on ATLAS_2011_I944826 routine

[Frank Siegert]

Hi Sercan,

Thanks for the quick feedback. So this confirms that there is some
change from the trigger fixes, and the analysis seems to work
~correctly.

Correct, the YODA version (in trunk) is still under development and
some histos are not being filled. There is a maintained parallel
branch which still has the older AIDA histogram system, in case you
need anything for production:
http://rivet.hepforge.org/trac/browser/branches/2012-06-aidarivet

Cheers,
Frank

On 26 October 2012 15:30, Sercan Sen <Sercan.Sen at cern.ch> wrote:
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>