<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I wrote a script that does some trivial checks for the reference<br>
data files shipped with rivet and their counterpart obtainable
from<br>
HepData.</p>
<p>It generates reports which can be found here:<br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://users.hepforge.org/~holsch/HepDataRivetReports/">https://users.hepforge.org/~holsch/HepDataRivetReports/</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is quite a number of inconsistencies.</p>
<p>Quite often in LHC analyses the dxy tags differ, a number of <br>
ref data sets differ in the number of data points between rivet
and hepdata<br>
and of course there are several analyses where the data is not in
hepdata<br>
at all.</p>
<p>And then there are some "goodness of fit" issues where I compare<br>
two scatters as such (can clearly be improved):</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote>def gof(P1, P2):<br>
chi=0.0<br>
for num, p in enumerate(P1):<br>
chi += (p.y - P2[num].y)<br>
chi += (p.yErrAvg - P2[num].yErrAvg)<br>
chi += (p.x - P2[num].x)<br>
chi += (p.xErrAvg - P2[num].xErrAvg)<br>
return chi<br>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>So yeah I don't really know what course of action to take but it
seem quite clear<br>
that HepData and rivet have diverged quite substantially.</p>
<p>Holger<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>