[Rivet] Rivet Analysis for Z+jets still not publicly available

[Roman Lysak]

Hi Andy, Ulla,



On 11/30/2013 10:59 AM, Andy Buckley wrote:
>
> I'm glad that there's a survey in the ATLAS SM group on Rivet analysis
> coverage! We last did a major review of the analyses in Glance, and
> updated Roman and Kiran's wishlist more that a year ago, so it would be
> great to follow that up with another update (and Rivet analysis code
> from the analysis authors, of course!)
yes, we talked about this with Kiran and we plan to update the list soon.
Of course, the direct input from SM group would be helpful.

Cheers,
   Roman



>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On 29/11/13 22:47, Ulla Blumenschein wrote:
>> Hello Andy,
>>
>> Many thanks for the feedback. Sorry for being too pushy.
>> I have been asked by interested People who want to test generators and
>> in addition
>> we are currently  having a big  survey within the SM group about the
>> Rivet status of all past analyses.
>>
>> Cheers, Ulla
>>
>> On Friday, November 29, 2013, Andy Buckley wrote:
>>
>>      Hi Ulla,
>>
>>      We update the web pages from the Rivet code itself when we make a new
>>      release. So it'll be updated when 1.9.0 is released. As I said, sorry
>>      about the long delay between new-analysis releases, but what's on the
>>      web page is probably current for the released Rivet versions.
>>
>>      Andy
>>
>>
>>      On 29/11/13 21:31, Ulla Blumenschein wrote:
>>      > Hello Andy,
>>      >
>>      > Many thanks for the feedback and for the support.
>>      > Any expert who is member of Atlas or STA can use the preliminary
>>      > internal versions but the outside world will browse the official rivet
>>      > pages.
>>      >
>>      > Best,
>>      > Ulla
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>      > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Andy Buckley
>>      <andy.buckley at cern.ch> wrote:
>>      >> Both are in my (development) version of Rivet 1.9.0 which will be
>>      >> released as soon as the validation runs have finished. They're both
>>      >> marked as VALIDATED.
>>      >>
>>      >> I'm not sure about availability in previous versions (because my
>>      >> installation is the development head) but there was an unfortunately
>>      >> long gap when submitted analyses built up because out limited
>>      manpower
>>      >> was focused on getting version 2.0.0 finished: sorry about that.
>>      >>
>>      >> Cheers,
>>      >> Andy
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >> On 29/11/13 21:17, Roman Lysak wrote:
>>      >>>
>>      >>>  Dear Ulla,
>>      >>>
>>      >>> the 2011 analysis is already in Rivet:
>>      >>>
>>      >>>
>>      https://rivet.hepforge.org/trac/browser/src/Analyses/ATLAS_2013_I1230812.cc
>>      >>>
>>      >>> Regarding ATLAS_2011_I945498, this was validated and I already
>>      sent it
>>      >>> to rivet authors (cc-ing) some time ago.
>>      >>> As far as I know, there should be a new rivet release tagged
>>      very soon,
>>      >>> so I guess it will appear in it then (the Rivet authors could
>>      comment
>>      >>> maybe).
>>      >>>
>>      >>> Cheers,
>>      >>>   Roman
>>      >>>
>>      >>>
>>      >>> On 11/29/2013 08:47 PM, Ulla Blumenschein wrote:
>>      >>>> Dear all,
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>> The 2010 Analysis still appears as unvalidated in the official
>>      Rivet
>>      >>>> page:
>>      >>>> http://rivet.hepforge.org/analyses#ATLAS_2011_I945498
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>> The 2011 analysis, ATLAS_2013_I1230812,  doesn't appear at all
>>      in the
>>      >>>> official page
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>> Are these analyses now in a public release?
>>      >>>> Can you please tell me  whom to contact to  finalize the
>>      integration
>>      >>>> into a public release and the display in the official rivet page?
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>> Many thanks in advance,
>>      >>>> Ulla
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Frank Siegert
>>      >>>> <frank.siegert at cern.ch> wrote:
>>      >>>>> Hi Roman, all,
>>      >>>>>
>>      >>>>>>> I wonder whether we even still need the "old" analysis,
>>      given that the
>>      >>>>>>> new one operates at the same energy and simply has much more
>>      >>>>>>> statistics?
>>      >>>>>> physics wise probably not , but I'm not sure what's yours
>>      (i.e. Rivet
>>      >>>>>> authors) policy, e.g. whether you remove any analysis from Rivet
>>      >>>>>> after some
>>      >>>>>> time, etc.
>>      >>>>>> Anyway, I already fixed the analysis and sent to rivet
>>      mailing list.
>>      >>>>> Ok, thanks. There is no removal after a certain time, only if it
>>      >>>>> remains unvalidated. But I agree with Ulla's point to keep this
>>      >>>>> analysis alive.
>>      >>>>>
>>      >>>>>>> As soon as Katharina has confirmed which email address she
>>      wants to
>>      >>>>>>> see used in the info files I can commit it directly (or you
>>      can send
>>      >>>>>>> it to Rivet and I take it from there, either is fine for me).
>>      >>>>>> I'm o.k. with you directly commit the analysis.
>>      >>>>>> Once you do this, let us know the revision number (we keep it
>>      on our
>>      >>>>>> web
>>      >>>>>> page, mainly to make sure the analysis we sent to rivet was
>>      really
>>      >>>>>> included
>>      >>>>>> in there).
>>      >>>>> This is done now, both on Rivet trunk (2.x):
>>      >
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> /_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>>      Ulla Blumenschein
>>      II Physik, Uni Goettingen
>>      Friedrich-Hund-Platz 1, D01.110
>>      phone: 0049-551-397645
>> /_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>