[Rivet] Problem with Rivet analysis ATLAS_2014_I1319490

[Andy Buckley]

Thanks Chris! And Jesper for the report.

Andy


On 29/10/15 10:00, Christian Gutschow wrote:
> Hi Jesper, Andy, all,
>
> many thanks for bringing this to our attention. It turns out the upper
> bin edge should have been 3.15 and seems to have been incorrectly
> rounded to 3.2 somewhere.
>
> We’ve fixed the HepData entry now and I’ve just uploaded a tarball with
> fixed yoda files to the contrib area (Could somebody please put them
> into the trunk, please?).
>
> Incidentally, the related Rjets analysis (ATLAS_2014_I1312627) has the
> same issue. We’ve fixed that one on HepData as well and I’ve uploaded a
> separate tarball for that, too.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> On 23 September 2015 at 16:52, Andy Buckley <andy.buckley at cern.ch
> <mailto:andy.buckley at cern.ch>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Jesper,
>
>     Copying to the Rivet main developer list. The ATLAS rep is on there,
>     hopefully he can help.
>
>     Andy
>
>
>     On 23/09/15 15:01, Jesper Roy Christiansen wrote:
>
>         Hi Andy and Matthew
>
>         I have been trying to study W + Jets using the Rivet analysis
>         ATLAS_2014_I1319490.
>
>         But there is one figure that looks odd. If I compare the
>         dphi(j_1,j_2)
>         the last bin drops for the MC simulations. (see attached figure,
>         ignore
>         name of curves :)). This behaviour is not something I expected,
>         and also
>         if I use an older Rivet analysis, ATLAS_2012_I1083318, this
>         behaviour is
>         not there (see attached figure) for the same MC runs.
>
>         I tried to look at the two analysis, and the only difference I could
>         spot was the new analysis using the wFinder class, which the old one
>         does not.
>
>         However, if I look at the bin range for the last bin it goes
>         from 3.0 -
>         3.2. I think this is a mistake, it should probably be cut-off at
>         PI. The
>         mistake is already there in the Durham hep database, so it should
>         probably also be updated there. Since I do not have acces to the
>         original analysis, I can not confirm what the true value should
>         be and
>         that indeed whether this is a bug. Maybe you can direct this to the
>         correct people, such that it can be fixed.
>
>         Cheers,
>         Jesper
>
>
>
>     --
>     Dr Andy Buckley, Lecturer / Royal Society University Research Fellow
>     Particle Physics Expt Group, University of Glasgow
>     _______________________________________________
>     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