-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add ATLAS_DY_8TEV_2D grid #10
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
May I suggest to indicate in the label on the y axis of the first panel of all plots to indicate that the distribution is 2D? That is
dsigma/dy -> dsigma/dydM
An unrelated question: in NNPDF4.0 we will include the 2D distribution instead of the 3D distribution. Given that my recollection is that this was implemented, shouldn't we generate the grids also for the 3D distribution?
@enocera That's a good point, on hepdata they are indeed shown as 2D distributions, but the APPLgrids that I used to compare them with were generated as 1D distributions. So we have to either leave things as they are, or correct both the plots and the implementation in apfelcomb. In any case the slices should be indicated in the plots (right now they aren't), see also NNPDF/pineappl#63 (comment) (one-but-last item). For the ATLAS 8 TeV 3D distributions the grids are currently running. I'd prefer to generate them as they are published by the experiment, but once we have the 3D distributions we can manually sum over |
OK. I don't have any preference, and btw changing the apfelcomb implementation is not hard work.
OK. So I guess that this also applies to #8 .
OK, thanks. |
If it's not hard work, then I'd say we do it properly. Let me change the bin normalizations and the plot labels. |
I can easily make the change, but there's also a factor 1/2 that I think is incorrect in the paper in eq. (3). I think instead of abs(yll) the observable really is yll, otherwise I don't see where this factor comes from. Do you agree/disagree? We also have to make sure to take of that in the data/apfelcomb implementation. |
This grid has the same problem as reported in #20. One can see that the first bin of the slice 300 < Mll < 500 is too large. It's obvious in the bin limits:
Bin 36 has the wrong boundaries. |
- added correct bin boundaries - made the differential distributions two-dimensional
Here the results with the corrected bin limits (notice that the differential cross section is two-dimensional now):
Corrected plots (116 < Mll < 150): 150 < Mll < 200: 200 < Mll < 300: 300 < Mll < 500: 500 < Mll < 1500: |
@enocera: the last commit should take care of the requested changes. |
Results:
Plots (116 < Mll < 150):
(150 < Mll < 200):
(200 < Mll < 300):
(300 < Mll < 500):
(500 < Mll < 1500):