[Rivet] Rivet validation of higgs- > gamma/gamma plugin

[roman lysak]

    Hi Holger,

we did the validation using this dataset:

mc12_8TeV.181085.PowhegPythia8_AU2CT10_HJJ_MINLO_ggH125_gamgam.evgen.EVNT.e2005/

The validation plots are in the attachment.
Note that, it's only relevant to compare certain plots where the 
prediction in the paper is using MinLO.

However, I'm a bit confused here since I don't understand what exactly 
are you trying to do.
My understanding was that it's the responsibility of the experiment to 
provide the validated analysis  from the physics point of view (which we 
were doing).
I understand the Rivet authors do the checks/improvements from technical 
side (although we do it partially too).
If this has changed and we don't need to do such validation anymore, let 
us know (cc-ing Chris who has been doing this lately).

Cheers,
   Roman


On 22/03/15 12:56, Florian Bernlochner wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I'll also include Roman. Maybe he still has some of his validation plots.
>
> Cheers,
> Florian
>
> On 22 March 2015 at 12:09, Holger Schulz <holger.schulz at durham.ac.uk 
> <mailto:holger.schulz at durham.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>     On 20/03/15 16:49, Michaela Queitsch-Maitland wrote:
>>     Hi Holger,
>>
>>     The routine was validated using a gluon fusion MiNLO HJJ sample:
>>
>>     mc12_8TeV.181085.PowhegPythia8_AU2CT10_HJJ_MINLO_ggH125_gamgam.evgen.EVNT.e2005
>>
>>     scaled to XS*BR = 19.27*0.00228. No other production modes were included for the validation. The results from the routine were compared against the analysis code (used to derive the unfolding factors for the data) with very good agreement. The plots in the publication were also reproduced by Roman Lysak (ex ATLAS Rivet contact) using the routine. Unfortunately I don’t have the plots from the ‘final’ version of the routine — Roman would have those.
>>
>>     Let me know if you need anymore information.
>     Hi Michaela,
>
>     I was trying to find the generator setup bits for this sample
>     looking into AMI and the svn browser of MC job options.
>     It would seem as if powheg (==powhegbox???) parton level outputs
>     (.LHEF) were  simply showered with Pythia8
>     allowing only for H->gamma gamma decays handled by pythia8. What I
>     am unable to find are the processes
>     included when running powheg (box?).
>
>
>     These are the JOs:
>
>      1. https://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/atlasoff/browser/Generators/MC12JobOptions/trunk/share/DSID181xxx/MC12.181085.PowhegPythia8_AU2CT10_HJJ_MINLO_ggH125_gamgam.py
>      2. https://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/atlasoff/browser/Generators/MC12JobOptions/trunk/common/PowhegPythia8_AU2_CT10_Common.py
>      3. https://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/atlasoff/browser/Generators/MC12JobOptions/trunk/common/Pythia8_Powheg.py
>      4. https://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/atlasoff/browser/Generators/MC12JobOptions/trunk/common/Pythia8_LHEF.py
>         ----> brick wall
>
>     As you can see, the latter just looks for files commonly named
>     "events.lhe" --- with no information whatsoever what these contain.
>
>     This is a bit dangerous. I would assume that the information on
>     the processes switched on when generating these files is
>     stored some other place. Maybe ami would be a good place to store
>     this kind of information globally.
>
>     So yeah, at this point I cannot consider your plugin validated as
>     I cannot reproduce your results.
>
>     Best,
>     Holger
>
>
>>     Cheers,
>>     Michaela
>>
>>     On 19 Mar 2015, at 20:07, Frank Siegert<Frank.Siegert at cern.ch>  <mailto:Frank.Siegert at cern.ch>  wrote:
>>
>>>     Hi Holger,
>>>
>>>     with a plain Sherpa H->gamma gamma setup the BRs will be screwed up,
>>>     so a factor of 10 can be expected.
>>>     There are new options for the upcoming Sherpa 2.2.0 which allow to fix this:
>>>     http://sherpa.hepforge.org/doc/SHERPA-MC-2.2.0.html#HDH_005fWIDTH
>>>
>>>     For Sherpa 2.1.1 you are best off running without BR weights
>>>     (HDH_BR_WEIGHTS=0) and multiplying with the correct H->gamma gamma BR
>>>     manually at the end.
>>>
>>>     Cheers,
>>>     Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 19 March 2015 at 19:54, Holger Schulz<holger.schulz at durham.ac.uk>  <mailto:holger.schulz at durham.ac.uk>  wrote:
>>>>     Hi Michaela,
>>>>
>>>>     in preparation of tomorrows release of Rivet we are currently validating the
>>>>     contrib plugins
>>>>     and I am having trouble with yours.
>>>>
>>>>     Maybe you could tell me your validation procedure, i.e. which MC you ran
>>>>     with what channels
>>>>     and so forth.
>>>>
>>>>     I am seeing a factor of 10 discrapancy in a sherpa generic H->gamma gamma
>>>>     setup.
>>>>
>>>>     Best,
>>>>     Holger
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     Rivet mailing list
>>>>     Rivet at projects.hepforge.org  <mailto:Rivet at projects.hepforge.org>
>>>>     https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Rivet mailing list
>>     Rivet at projects.hepforge.org  <mailto:Rivet at projects.hepforge.org>
>>     https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.hepforge.org/lists-archive/rivet/attachments/20150323/ee9027e6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: plots_log.pdf
Type: binary/octet-stream
Size: 430214 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.hepforge.org/lists-archive/rivet/attachments/20150323/ee9027e6/attachment.bin>