30 | | [0, done, 1, reweight, enter path][60s to answer]}}} |
31 | | If you didn't define the content of this file already. You need to do it. |
32 | | The syntax is explained inside the file, and you can see example below (validation section). |
33 | | The '''important''' point, is that the first line should be launch, and then you specify which parameter, you want to modify. |
34 | | This is the exact same syntax has for scripting a scan over parameter. |
35 | | 5. exit the file and you are done. |
| 31 | [0, done, 1, reweight, enter path][60s to answer] |
| 32 | }}} |
| 33 | If you didn't define the content of this file already. You need to do it. The syntax is explained inside the file, and you can see example below (validation section). The '''important''' point, is that the first line should be launch, and then you specify which parameter, you want to modify. This is the exact same syntax has for scripting a scan over parameter. |
| 34 | 5. exit the file and you are done (the script will run). |
| 35 | |
| 36 | '''If the file Cards/reweight_card.dat is already defined''', you can launch the script with |
| 37 | {{{ |
| 38 | ./bin/madevent reweight RUN_NAME -f |
| 39 | }}} |
| 40 | The '''-f''' options prevent the question to be asked. |
100 | | The validation of this tools is not yet finish. Use this tools with care. In particular in presence of decay chain, if you have identical particles in the final states coming from different decay. (For example p p > w+ z, w+ > e+ ve, z > e+ e-) |
| 114 | 1. The validation of this tools is not yet finish. Use this tools with care. In particular in presence of decay chain, if you have identical particles in the final states coming from different decay. (For example p p > w+ z, w+ > e+ ve, z > e+ e-) |
| 115 | |
| 116 | 2. The comparison for the full cross-section are done like this: |
| 117 | {{{ ./bin/madevent ./Cards/reweight_card.dat}}} |
105 | | |
106 | | |
107 | | |
108 | | |
109 | | |
| 141 | 1. The model use for this validation is the EWDIM6 (See: http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1205.4231). 10k events where generated with the standard model (cross-section: 0.8008 ± 0.0026 pb) |
| 142 | 2. The reweight_card was: |
| 143 | {{{ |
| 144 | launch |
| 145 | set Dim6 1 100 |
| 146 | set Dim6 2 0 |
| 147 | set Dim6 3 0 |
| 148 | set Dim6 4 0 |
| 149 | set Dim6 5 0 |
| 150 | launch |
| 151 | set Dim6 1 10 |
| 152 | set Dim6 2 0 |
| 153 | set Dim6 3 0 |
| 154 | set Dim6 4 0 |
| 155 | set Dim6 5 0 |
| 156 | launch |
| 157 | set Dim6 1 1 |
| 158 | set Dim6 2 0 |
| 159 | set Dim6 3 0 |
| 160 | set Dim6 4 0 |
| 161 | set Dim6 5 0 |
| 162 | launch |
| 163 | set Dim6 1 0.1 |
| 164 | set Dim6 2 0 |
| 165 | set Dim6 3 0 |
| 166 | set Dim6 4 0 |
| 167 | set Dim6 5 0 |
| 168 | launch |
| 169 | set Dim6 1 0.01 |
| 170 | set Dim6 2 0 |
| 171 | set Dim6 3 0 |
| 172 | set Dim6 4 0 |
| 173 | set Dim6 5 0 |
| 174 | }}} |
| 175 | The same scan was done for the three first coupling (CWWW, CW, CB) |
| 176 | |
| 177 | This is the result: |
| 178 | 1. For CWWW |
| 179 | || Coupling value (TeV^-2)|| Reweight cross-section (pb) || MadEvent cross-section (pb)|| Status || |
| 180 | || 0.01 || 0.800810008029 || 0.7973 ± 0.0023 || OK || |
| 181 | || 0.1 || 0.800903791291 || 0.799 ± 0.0026 || OK || |
| 182 | || 1 || 0.802209013071 || 0.7987 ± 0.0025 || OK || |
| 183 | || 10 || 0.85200014698 || 0.8584 ± 0.00092 || OK || |
| 184 | || 100 || 5.0238030968 || 6.09 ± 0.0082 || '''FAIL''' || |
| 185 | || 100 || 5.04763 || 6.09 ± 0.0082 || '''FAIL''' (make with a sample of 100k events) || |
| 186 | |
| 187 | The last entry fails since the expected distribution for such value of the coupling is too different from the distribution of the Standard Model. Such discrepancy are expected in this case. One hint is that the cross-section is an order of magnitude higher than the original one (Looking at the distribution confirm this). |
| 188 | |
| 189 | 2. For CW |
| 190 | || Coupling value (TeV^-2)|| Reweight cross-section (pb) || MadEvent cross-section (pb)|| Status || |
| 191 | || 0.01 || 0.800798262059 || 0.7953 +- 0.002497 || OK || |
| 192 | || 0.1 || 0.801379445746 || 0.7988 ± 0.0023 || OK || |
| 193 | || 1 || 0.806872565125 || 0.8065 ± 0.0023 || OK || |
| 194 | || 10 || 0.889336417677 || 0.8832 ± 0.003 || OK || |
| 195 | || 100 || 4.46724081967 || 4.519 ± 0.015 || '''FAIL''' || |
| 196 | || 100 || 4.44273 || 4.519 ± 0.015 || '''FAIL''' (make with a sample of 100k events) || |
| 197 | Same comment as for the previous coupling. |
| 198 | |
| 199 | 2. For CB |
| 200 | || Coupling value (TeV^-2)|| Reweight cross-section (pb) || MadEvent cross-section (pb)|| Status || |
| 201 | || 0.01 || 0.800798262059 || 0.7977 ± 0.0027 || OK || |
| 202 | || 0.1 || 0.800782626532 || 0.7985 ± 0.0024 || OK || |
| 203 | || 1 || 0.800626859275 || 0.7981 +- 0.002365 || OK || |
| 204 | || 10 || 0.799127987884 || 0.7971 ± 0.0024 || OK || |
| 205 | || 100 || 0.790019392142 || 0.7852 ± 0.0026 || OK || |
| 206 | || 100 || 0.786698206995 || 0.7852 ± 0.0026 || OK (make with a sample of 100k events) || |
| 207 | This operator has less impact on the cross-section/distributions, and therefore even a large value of the coupling is still working fine. |
| 208 | |
| 209 | Note: |
| 210 | 1. The cross-section obtained for 100k events sample is 0.7989 ± 0.00087 |
| 211 | 2. The statistical fluctuation of the original sample appears on the reweighing (as expected) |