Skip to content
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

QCD, pileup, parton showering uncs. #201

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

QCD, pileup, parton showering uncs. #201

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

rkansal47
Copy link
Collaborator

  • QCD scale and PDF acceptance shape uncertainties
  • Pileup for all MC
  • ISR/FSR parton showering uncertainties for signal only
  • Test

Copy link
Contributor

@cmantill cmantill left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you produce templates and make sure that lnN values and shapes make sense?


if wshift == "scale":
# renormalization / factorization scale uncertainty is the max/min envelope of the variations
shape_up = np.max(whists.values(), axis=0)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am not sure this is correct. Shouldn't it be shape_up of all the variations except (4) and then compare that with weight (4)?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The weights should already be with respect to the nominal (4) from the skimmer.

nom_vals = h[sample, :].values()
abs_unc = np.linalg.norm(
(whists.values() - nom_vals), axis=0
) # / np.sqrt(103)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why is # / np.sqrt(103) commented? maybe get rid of it?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes it is not necessary (wasn't sure before).

@rkansal47
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Can you produce templates and make sure that lnN values and shapes make sense?

Sorry I don't think I have time for that today.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants