[Rivet] ALICE input to Rivet - MC points (Xi and Omega pp 7TeV, ALICE_2012_I1097057)

[Jesper Roy Christiansen]

Dear Antonin

Thanks you for the data and the information.
I will try to compare it to some runs, unfortunately my setup for producing
hepmc files from Pythia 6 is not updated and I will have to see if I can 
get it to work.

After double checking my setup again, I found a problem with it.
The comparison I can do with CMS now looks good. If I compare the ratio 
between
the experiment and the same Pythia tune (Monash tune), they stay within 
the given uncertainty on
these values (+-0.1 for each experiment), except for a few points. I 
have attached the MC/data ratios for the
Xi production, if you want to see the comparison yourself.

Again thank you for the help and I apologize for any inconvenience my 
mistake
may have caused.

Cheers,
Jesper

On 06/08/2015 09:50 PM, Andy Buckley wrote:
> On 08/06/15 18:25, Antonin Maire (IPHC) wrote:
>> Ah, sorry, Jesper, I forgot to answer one of your point.
>>
>> We did not try to check exhaustively the specific instance of rivet
>> analysis that was sent around, i.e. we did not compare a Rivet output
>> with the MC points that we've just sent you
>> (Some tests were done 1 year ago by another third person, with an older
>> rivet version; the comparison (Rivet/published MC points) was looking
>> good but was not really checked down to utter details.)
> Hi Antonin, David, and co,
>
> Presumably this analysis *has* been checked against something?! Or did I
> misunderstand?
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
>
>> The thing is that David needed to simulate a lot of Pythia Perugia2011
>> events : to get a statistical uncertainty on the Omega d²N/dptdy limited
>> to 1-3%, up to our highest Omega pT bin, 300e6 events were simulated.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>     Antonin
>>
>>
>> Le 08/06/2015 19:02, Antonin Maire (IPHC) a écrit :
>>> Hello again,
>>>
>>>    David was the main actor for the Pythia simulation at the time of
>>> the paper.
>>> We exchanged a few mails over the last days, to check we understand
>>> similarly again our own developments.
>>>
>>> Among other things, Pythia 6 tunes Z1, Z2, Perugia 2011 simulations
>>> were carried out.
>>> Pythia 8 was not tried at that time.
>>> Perugia 2011 was the one of best performance so became the one we
>>> focused on.
>>>
>>>
>>> _About the Pythia generation and analysis :_
>>>
>>> - there is no special thing with the .cmnd config file.
>>> The central tune Perugia 2011 (350) was used as it is.
>>> The simlulated events are only "inelastic"  ones (i.e. allow for
>>> single+double diffraction on top of the non-diffractive processes).
>>>
>>> - The MC analysis was performed via ROOT+TPythia6, so that TH1 can be
>>> used.
>>>
>>>
>>> _MC points_
>>>
>>>   
>>> I enclose the table of values, taken from our macro to produce Fig.2
>>> in http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.0282v2.pdf.
>>> - David is certainly ashamed that I show the underwear of his old code
>>> ( :-) ) but ok, let me give you some clarification in the naming of
>>> things.
>>>
>>> 1. You will see Z2 in every array name but has no meaning (except for
>>> Z2 tune values...)
>>>
>>> 2. The pt binning of ALICE data was used.
>>>      There are MC points simulated with the Xi binning (= 18 pT bins)
>>> and this also for the Omega spectra, and conversely, MC points with
>>> Omega binning (= 8 pT bins) also for the Xi spectra.
>>>      Which binning is used where is indicated by the first particle
>>> name next to Z2, e.g. Z2XiSimulatedXiMinus
>>>
>>> 3. the Pythia values corresponds here to the integral of counts over
>>> each pT bin width = a bin content in the ROOT sense.
>>>       Note these values ARE already further divided :
>>>      - by Delta(pT), the pT bin width, i.e. normalised by unit of pT.
>>>      - by the number of PYTHIA INEL events analysed
>>>
>>> 4. As a consequence of these normalised integral of counts,
>>>      4.1 - the division of MC/data is kept straightforward
>>>      4.2 - No need to worry about the right pT place to display the
>>> ratio MC/data (cf. Lafferty-Wyatt NIM paper) : the points are
>>> displayed at the centre of the pt bins.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _Comparison CMS/ALICE_
>>>
>>> About the comparison of Xi+-(CMS) and Xi+-(ALICE), I enclose an
>>> exchange I had recently with Andreas on the topic.
>>> The main point is NSD/INEL and the fact that CMS is not only Xi- but
>>> the sum of Xi- and anti-Xi+
>>> http://mcplots.cern.ch/?query=plots,ppppbar,uemb-soft,Xim_pt
>>> That CMS plot should maybe be moved next the ALICE 900 GeV (Xi-+Xi+)
>>> results
>>> http://mcplots.cern.ch/?query=plots,ppppbar,uemb-soft,Xi_pt
>>>
>>>
>>> We stay at disposal.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>      David & Antonin
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 04/06/2015 16:39, Jesper Roy Christiansen a écrit :
>>>> Dear Boris and ALICE collaborators
>>>>
>>>> First of all thank you for providing the Rivet analysis, I have
>>>> already tried to run it to test how the new model compares (but I
>>>> need a bit more time before I am going to discuss that in details :)).
>>>>
>>>> I have also tried to compare this analysis with the Xi production
>>>> measured by CMS (CMS_2011_S8978280), and the models/data seems to be
>>>> quite different (the two analysis differs in that one is NSD, where
>>>> as yours is fully inelastic). But before drawing any conclusions, I
>>>> would first like to test whether I use the analysis correctly. I was
>>>> therefore wondering if you have the MC data that is shown in the
>>>> article available in a table format? That way I would be able to run
>>>> Pythia with the same tune and verify that I can get the same result
>>>> as is in your article (if you already did this, it is of course not
>>>> needed for me to do it). Otherwise if you for some reason still
>>>> happen to have the Pythia .cmnd file you used to generate the events
>>>> used in the article laying around, I would be very happy if you could
>>>> send me that (I know this is probably a bit too much to ask).
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Jesper
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 06/03/2015 09:06 PM, Boris Hippolyte wrote:
>>>>> Dear Andy,
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) we believe the relevant plots are already included in the targz
>>>>> archive you received (in fact, these are very simple pT spectra
>>>>> plus a mT-m0 ratio as contained in our 2012 publication).
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) we checked this rivet analysis of our data against PYTHIA 8
>>>>> (not much statistics, admittedly) but we knew already that event
>>>>> generators have significant difficulties with baryons, and even
>>>>> more with multi-strange ones.
>>>>> -> the hope is that Peter and Jesper (also in cc) will manage to
>>>>> include these “rivetised" data for their next publication(s).
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) you can expect two other ALICE rivet contributions (related
>>>>> to identified pT spectra) in the coming days.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> —B.
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> HIPPOLYTE Boris       B214               hippolyt at in2p3.fr
>>>>> <mailto:hippolyt at in2p3.fr>
>>>>> Département de Recherches Subatomiques
>>>>> Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien
>>>>> 23, rue du Loess Bat20 BP28           phone: +33(0)388106646
>>>>> F-67037 Strasbourg cedex2             fax:       +33(0)388106614
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 3, 2015, at 15:40, Andy Buckley <andy.buckley at cern.ch
>>>>>> <mailto:andy.buckley at cern.ch>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Antonin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The analysis tarball is in the Rivet contrib downloads area now, and
>>>>>> we'll integrate it into the next release. Great to have another ALICE
>>>>>> analysis!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have any plots available from the analysis validation that
>>>>>> we can
>>>>>> put in the archive for future reference?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/06/15 00:15, Antonin Maire (IPHC) wrote:
>>>>>>> Good evening everybody,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       I allow myself to contact you to provide an archive of a Rivet
>>>>>>> analysis related to ( Xi-, anti-Xi+, Omega-, anti-Omega+) pT spectra
>>>>>>> measured by ALICE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Multi-strange baryon production in pp collisions at (s)^1/2 = 7
>>>>>>> TeV with
>>>>>>> ALICE,
>>>>>>> http://inspirehep.net/record/1097057
>>>>>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0282
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The "rivetisation" of the analysis was done by Boris Hippolyte
>>>>>>> (thanks !).
>>>>>>> David Chinellato and myself were "primary" analysers and authors
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> above paper.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We propose this Rivet analysis to be integrated into the official
>>>>>>> Rivet/src/Analyses
>>>>>>> (first, I guess, via
>>>>>>> https://www.hepforge.org/archive/rivet/contrib/, up
>>>>>>> to the next release).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I stay at disposal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Antonin Maire, ALICE member
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Rivet mailing list
>>>>>>> Rivet at projects.hepforge.org <mailto:Rivet at projects.hepforge.org>
>>>>>>> https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Dr Andy Buckley, Lecturer / Royal Society University Research Fellow
>>>>>> Particle Physics Expt Group, University of Glasgow
>

-------------- next part --------------
Xi production comparison between CMS and ALICE.

CMS comparison:
xlow xupp  MC / data    
0    0.2  1.35563
0.2  0.4  1.19168
0.4  0.6  0.85837
0.6  0.8  0.616012
0.8  1    0.497418
1    1.2  0.396843
1.2  1.4  0.360517
1.4  1.6  0.352239
1.6  1.8  0.38523
1.8  2    0.375667
2    2.2  0.373085
2.2  2.4  0.350941
2.4  2.6  0.3733
2.6  2.8  0.384921
2.8  3    0.388441
3    3.2  0.43463
3.2  3.4  0.455002
3.4  3.6  0.388864
3.6  3.8  0.43059
3.8  4    0.492964
4    5    0.515698
5    6    0.485728
5    6    0.485728

ALICE comparison:
xlow xupp  MC / data 
0.6  0.8  0.743135
0.8  0.9  0.552849
0.9  1    0.490677
1    1.1  0.464347
1.1  1.2  0.420685
1.2  1.3  0.409172
1.3  1.4  0.418203
1.4  1.5  0.396845
1.5  1.7  0.384701
1.7  1.9  0.442204
1.9  2.2  0.428214
2.2  2.6  0.45521
2.6  3.1  0.505181
3.1  3.9  0.505063
3.9  4.9  0.541903
4.9  6    0.74603
6    7.2  0.752445
7.2  8.5  1.37732
7.2  8.5  1.37732