Hi Holger, If this is normalised using the actual cross section as indicated in the y axis labels, then I'm surprised that NLO predictions are 15% low in the hard region. But adding the electron cuts will worsen this even more, so I don't have any constructive idea on how to improve this... Let's put it in like this as our best and (somewhat) validated guess. Cheers, Frank <div class="gmail_quote">Am 02.10.2015 16:10 schrieb "Holger Schulz" <<a href="mailto:holger.schulz@durham.ac.uk">holger.schulz@durham.ac.uk</a>>: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Hi all, here is the version without the electron cut on Et with LJET:=2 and NJET:=1 <blockquote><a href="https://users.hepforge.org/~holsch/d01-x01-y01.pdf" target="_blank">https://users.hepforge.org/~holsch/d01-x01-y01.pdf</a> </blockquote> There are some Sherpa issues with primordial kT at tevatron run conditions, apart from that this looks pretty ok to me. Holger On 02/10/15 09:12, Frank Siegert wrote: <blockquote type="cite"> <pre>Thanks, this is exactly what I was after. Holger, which direction does the 15-20% offset go? Did you really set LJET:=1 (this would mean the 2->1 process is done at NLO, i.e. nothing here) or did you mean LJET:=2? Comparing to NLO we should definitely not see a 15-20% global offset, and this could point to wrong lepton cuts. Cheers, Frank On 1 October 2015 at 20:04, Gavin Hesketh <a href="mailto:gavin.hesketh@ucl.ac.uk" target="_blank"><gavin.hesketh@ucl.ac.uk></a> wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre>Hi, sorry for weighting in again, but I'm pretty sure there should not be an ET cut on the electrons... Section V in the paper mentions correcting for this. Do the distributions look completely off if you remove that cut? cheers, Gavin On 01/10/15 16:01, Holger Schulz wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre> On 01/10/15 15:43, Frank Siegert wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre> Hi Holger, given that you have committed this analysis now as validated (using Sherpa), I was just wondering whether the normalisation looks as expected. Simone mentioned that his validation was done using Pythia8, and it would be surprising that Pythia8 matches the cross section correctly -- one would expect a global ~ -15% offset due to the missing NLO accuracy. Have you compared it against NLO Sherpa (or LO Sherpa scaled with an appropriate k-factor) and see good agreement? Anything else could point to missing (lepton?) cuts. </pre> </blockquote> <pre> Hi Frank, the paper states an ET cut for the electrons of at least 25 GeV, I implemented that one. I ran Sherpa with LJET=1, NJET=1 using the example setup and see a shape very much compatible with data. The offset is about 15-20%. I ran 100000 weighted events using trunk without MI_HANDLER Here is the shape comparison for the peak region: <a href="https://users.hepforge.org/~holsch/d01-x01-y01.pdf" target="_blank">https://users.hepforge.org/~holsch/d01-x01-y01.pdf</a> And this is the distribution up to zpt=150 GeV: <a href="https://users.hepforge.org/~holsch/d01-x01-y01_150GeV.pdf" target="_blank">https://users.hepforge.org/~holsch/d01-x01-y01_150GeV.pdf</a> Cheers, Holger </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre>Cheers, Frank On 28 September 2015 at 11:39, Simone Amoroso<a href="mailto:simo.amoroso@gmail.com" target="_blank"><simo.amoroso@gmail.com></a> wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre> Hi Frank, For the selections (since the paper was not really clear), I copied what was used in the Z/W pT ratio (already in RIVET), which makes use of the same selections. The validation was simply made by running Pythia8, I definitely didn’t apply k-factors, but I might have rescaled the prediction to data (I honestly don’t remember). cheers, Simone </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre>On 23 Sep 2015, at 16:07, Frank Siegert<a href="mailto:frank.siegert@cern.ch" target="_blank"><frank.siegert@cern.ch></a> wrote: Hi all, I have just started to look at this to get it in for the imminent release. The paper is at first glance not very clear on which selection requirements were retained for the final cross section measurement. Simone, do you remember, why you removed the electron ET cuts? Did they correct completely for the electron acceptance? And for your validation plot, I was wondering which Monte-Carlo did you run, and is the prediction scaled by a (K-)factor? Cheers, Frank On 1 July 2015 at 15:57, Chris Pollard<a href="mailto:cpollard@cern.ch" target="_blank"><cpollard@cern.ch></a> wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre> Hi Simone, In this analysis I notice that there is no lepton pt cut imposed in the ZFinder. Was this intentional? I guess at least one lepton needs to have pT </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre> 10 GeV to fire the trigger? </pre> </blockquote> <pre> Chris On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Andy Buckley<a href="mailto:andy.buckley@cern.ch" target="_blank"><andy.buckley@cern.ch></a> wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre> On 07/05/15 07:55, Simone Amoroso wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre> Hi Andy, I made a new RIVET routine for the D0 RunI measurement of the Z pT. Below a validation plot and attached the tarball. </pre> </blockquote> <pre> Thanks Simone, I've put it in the analysis contrib area and we'll get it into a new Rivet release as soon as possible. Andy -- Dr Andy Buckley, Lecturer / Royal Society University Research Fellow Particle Physics Expt Group, University of Glasgow _______________________________________________ Rivet mailing list <a href="mailto:Rivet@projects.hepforge.org" target="_blank">Rivet@projects.hepforge.org</a> <a href="https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet" target="_blank">https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet</a> </pre> </blockquote> <pre> _______________________________________________ Rivet mailing list <a href="mailto:Rivet@projects.hepforge.org" target="_blank">Rivet@projects.hepforge.org</a> <a href="https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet" target="_blank">https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet</a> </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre> _______________________________________________ Rivet mailing list <a href="mailto:Rivet@projects.hepforge.org" target="_blank">Rivet@projects.hepforge.org</a> <a href="https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet" target="_blank">https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet</a> </pre> </blockquote> <pre> _______________________________________________ Rivet mailing list <a href="mailto:Rivet@projects.hepforge.org" target="_blank">Rivet@projects.hepforge.org</a> <a href="https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet" target="_blank">https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet</a> </pre> </blockquote> <pre>_______________________________________________ Rivet mailing list <a href="mailto:Rivet@projects.hepforge.org" target="_blank">Rivet@projects.hepforge.org</a> <a href="https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet" target="_blank">https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet</a> </pre> </blockquote> <pre>_______________________________________________ Rivet mailing list <a href="mailto:Rivet@projects.hepforge.org" target="_blank">Rivet@projects.hepforge.org</a> <a href="https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet" target="_blank">https://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet</a></pre> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote></div>