Conversation
scarlehoff
left a comment
scarlehoff
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm fine with this but I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to use idat for all of them, so that we select one particular bin (and not based on a kinematic variable).
Also, the bin is completely arbitrary, right? Was it important in the end which bin was chosen? I don't remember whether we did test this in the end.
I remember @jacoterh checked the covmat didn't actually have a 0 though... #2457
|
|
||
| - dataset: CMS_TTBAR_8TEV_LJ_DIF_YT-NORM | ||
| reason: | | ||
| We remove the last bin of the LHCB_DY_8TEV_MUON_Ynormalised distribution because it is |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder how did LHCB end up there 😆
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There were a bunch of these, actually - obviously I removed all of them but one.
The rationale right now is to always use the last bin (with the poorest statistics). I seems to remember that there was an executive agreement on that. The specific bin we remove is of course arbitrary, however consistently removing the last one seems to me the easiest convention and the more convenient (we are always on the tail of the distribution). In all the top-quark pair data sets the removed bin is always the last. I can switch to the bin number consistently. |
2 participants
This PR implements some additional cuts on new top-quark pair distributions to remove the potentially linearly dependent bin of each normalised distribution.