[Rivet] CMS_2013_I1208923

[Andy Buckley]

On 04/10/15 19:43, Holger Schulz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> so the thing with this QCD analysis is that I validated their stuff
> quite some time ago but did  change they didn't like.
>
> Namely, they submitted the code as two analyses, one for
> dijets and one for inclusive jets. The cuts and analysis workflows
> are exactly the same. So I thought it might be smarter to
> have one analysis which fills d sigma / d p_T for each selected
> jet and M_jj in case of dijet events rather than having
> the two fill commands in separate but identical analysis
> flows.
>
> Should I just add this as it is and be done with it or should we
> obey?

Hi Holger, all,

Are the two analyses from the same paper, taking data from (duplicates 
of) the same HepData entry, etc.?

If so, then I indeed think it is helpful to users, *and* to us as 
maintainers, to combine the analyses into a single code. Maybe Xavier 
can explain the justification to split them? -- since it sounds like 
they would operate on the same events, and the results should be identical.

If they are different publications (seems a priori unlikely...) then I 
think they should be separate codes too, despite the logical 
duplication. There are already plenty of analyses with similar logic, 
and overall it is not worth losing sleep (or friends) over ;-)

Andy

-- 
Dr Andy Buckley, Lecturer / Royal Society University Research Fellow
Particle Physics Expt Group, University of Glasgow