Changes between Version 2 and Version 3 of Reweight


Ignore:
Timestamp:
07/01/13 07:06:49 (7 years ago)
Author:
omatt
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Reweight

    v2 v3  
    2424 3. type '''reweight RUN_NAME'''
    2525 4. then you will see the following question:
    26     {{{Do you want to edit one cards (press enter to bypass editing)?
     26{{{
     27Do you want to edit one cards (press enter to bypass editing)?
    2728  1 / reweight  : reweight_card.dat
    2829 you can also
    2930   - enter the path to a valid card.
    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}}}
     40The '''-f''' options prevent the question to be asked.
    3641
    3742 = Input/Output format
     
    7176</event>
    7277}}}
    73 The reweight_card in that case was:
     78 2. The reweight_card in that case was:
    7479{{{
    7580launch
     
    96101    b. You can also specify a path to a param_card in the reweight_card. The content of the header being computed automatically with the difference of the two param_card.
    97102 
     103 3. The cross-section of the original file and those associated with the new hyppothesis are printed at the end of the script:
     104{{{
     105INFO: Original cross-section: 0.80086112072 +- 0.0025669959099 pb
     106INFO: Computed cross-section:
     107INFO: 119 : 5.0238030968
     108INFO: 120 : 4.46724081967
     109INFO: 121 : 0.790019392142
     110}}}
     111
    98112 = Validation
    99113
    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}}}
    101118
    102119 == p p > e+ e- cross-section
    103120
     121 1. The reweight_card is the following:
     122{{{
     123launch
     124 set aewm1 100
     125launch
     126 set aewm1 200
     127launch
     128 set aewm1 300
     129}}}
     130 2. The associated cross-section are
     131   1. 1135.25 pb
     132   2. 1095.28 pb
     133   3. 1329.52 pb
     134 3. The cross-section computed with MadEvent are
     135   1. 1130 +- 2.815 pb
     136   2. 1098 +- 2.478 pb
     137   3. 1336 +- 2.777 pb
     138
     139 == EWDIM6 Validation
    104140 
    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{{{
     144launch
     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
     150launch
     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
     156launch
     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
     162launch
     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
     168launch
     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}}}
     175The same scan was done for the three first coupling (CWWW, CW, CB)
     176
     177This 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
     209Note:
     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)