<div dir="ltr">Hi Andy,<div>Thanks, this is perfect. I think just having this option will also help analysis writers to see that this cut doesn't come in by default, which many of us thought was the case!</div><div>Regards,</div><div>Kevin</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Andy Buckley <<a href="mailto:andy.buckley@cern.ch" target="_blank">andy.buckley@cern.ch</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Good! I've done it on the Rivet trunk: you can now say things like myjet.bTags(Cuts::pT > 5*GeV && Cuts::etaIn(2.5)); and myjet.bTagged(Cuts::pT > 5*GeV); Hope this helps... when we get a new major version out. We're trying to speed up the release procedure so it might not be too long. Let's see ;-) Andy On 29/07/15 12:07, Christian Gutschow wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Hi Andy, all, yes, please! +1 for being able to use Cuts as an argument to bTags(). That's a much neater way of doing it.. Cheers, Chris On 29 July 2015 at 12:54, Andy Buckley <<a href="mailto:andy.buckley@cern.ch" target="_blank">andy.buckley@cern.ch</a> <div><div class="h5"> <mailto:<a href="mailto:andy.buckley@cern.ch" target="_blank">andy.buckley@cern.ch</a>>> wrote: Hi Kevin, Thanks for the ping -- this had gone off my radar / I thought I had answered. I've copied this to the Rivet developer list, which is a more reliable place to ask questions due to more people & more expertise on the receiving end. I'm not quite sure why you are asking: have you noticed a change in behaviour without the cut across Rivet versions? In general I think making cuts explicit is the right thing to do. But I guess when you say that you are doing it manually that you really mean you are explicitly making a list of "b" particles with some kinematic cuts, then deltaR-matching those to the jets? We could/should allow the user to specify tag-particle cuts when configuring the FastJets projection, but right now you can do something like: const Jets& myjets = applyProjection<FastJets>(evt, "Jets").jets(); foreach (const Jet& j, jets) { foreach (const Particle& t, j.bTags()) { if (t.pT() > 5*GeV) // accept this jet } } We can make this nicer to use, e.g. I imagine something like this would be helpful: foreach (const Jet& j, jets) { if (j.bTags(Cuts::pT > 5*GeV).size() > 0) // accept this jet } What do you think? It's an easy feature to add. Andy On 29/07/15 02:20, Kevin Finelli wrote: Hi Andy, Just pinging again to see if you have had the chance to read this. Thanks, Kevin On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Alexander Grohsjean <<a href="mailto:Alexander.Grohsjean@desy.de" target="_blank">Alexander.Grohsjean@desy.de</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Alexander.Grohsjean@desy.de" target="_blank">Alexander.Grohsjean@desy.de</a>> </div></div> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Alexander.Grohsjean@desy.de" target="_blank">Alexander.Grohsjean@desy.de</a><div><div class="h5"> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Alexander.Grohsjean@desy.de" target="_blank">Alexander.Grohsjean@desy.de</a>>>> wrote: Hi Andy, maybe to clarify. In the original code I provided, there was a cut of 5 GeV. When testing my implementation against the Rivet one using 50 k events, as Kevin wrote, we got exactly the same yoda files out. That's why it is not clear if this cut was dropped between versions or if the 50k was not enough statistics to see any difference. Cheers, Alexander. Am 24.07.2015 um 04:31 schrieb Kevin Finelli: Hi Andy, We were hoping you could clarify the situation with pT cuts on B hadrons used in truth jet b-tagging within Rivet. In my own tests, using 2.2, I have been "manually" applying the standard 5 GeV pT requirement on B hadrons needed for a jet to be considered b-tagged. This is now in the 7 TeV pseudotop analysis (ATLAS_2015_I1345452), Chris G. submitted a patch about a week ago. Looking back, I noticed the tt+jets analysis (ATLAS_2014_I1304688) doesn't make this cut explicitly. Alexander mentioned that this cut was not needed when the analysis was tested, as two implementations of the ghost association gave identical results in 50k events. Is it possible there was a cut in FastJets that changed in Rivet 2.2? In any case it seems that we might want to go back now and make this cut explicit in the tt+jets routine. Regards, Kevin -- Dr Andy Buckley, Lecturer / Royal Society University Research Fellow Particle Physics Expt Group, University of Glasgow _______________________________________________ Rivet mailing list </div></div> <a href="mailto:Rivet@projects.hepforge.org" target="_blank">Rivet@projects.hepforge.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Rivet@projects.hepforge.org" target="_blank">Rivet@projects.hepforge.org</a>> <a href="https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet</a> </blockquote><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"> -- Dr Andy Buckley, Lecturer / Royal Society University Research Fellow Particle Physics Expt Group, University of Glasgow </div></div></blockquote></div> </div>