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

Various implementations #249

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Jan 13, 2022
Merged

Various implementations #249

merged 9 commits into from
Jan 13, 2022

Conversation

fgrosa
Copy link
Member

@fgrosa fgrosa commented Nov 12, 2021

This PR implements:

  • the possibility to apply pt and multiplicity weights for efficiencies when projecting sparses
  • the cut object for the D* in pp@13 TeV
  • a script to compute ratios between (non)prompt fractions

@fcatalan92
Copy link
Member

@fgrosa, do you need a review of this PR?

@fgrosa
Copy link
Member Author

fgrosa commented Dec 2, 2021

@fgrosa, do you need a review of this PR?

Ciao @fcatalan92, if you want to check it is always welcome of course, but actually now I was waiting to add systematic uncertainties. I put it in WIP so that we still don't merge it

@fgrosa fgrosa changed the title Add script for computation of fraction ratios for vs. mult analysis WIP: Add script for computation of fraction ratios for vs. mult analysis Dec 2, 2021
@fgrosa fgrosa changed the title WIP: Add script for computation of fraction ratios for vs. mult analysis Various implementations Jan 1, 2022
Copy link
Member

@fcatalan92 fcatalan92 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @fgrosa, in general, the code looks fine. I have only two points:

  1. we would need the same implementation for the projection of trees to avoid a feature mismatch;
  2. probably the code could be refactored to apply the various weighting independently from each other. Now you are considering different combinations, but in principle, we could simplify the code by applying the different weighting one after another (pt, multiplicity, ...) and by projecting the sparse only at the end.

@fgrosa
Copy link
Member Author

fgrosa commented Jan 10, 2022

Hi @fgrosa, in general, the code looks fine. I have only two points:

1. we would need the same implementation for the projection of trees to avoid a feature mismatch;

2. probably the code could be refactored to apply the various weighting independently from each other. Now you are considering different combinations, but in principle, we could simplify the code by applying the different weighting one after another (pt, multiplicity, ...) and by projecting the sparse only at the end.

Hi @fcatalan92 thanks! I actually agree with your both comments, I just have no time right now to implement them. If it's ok for you I open an issue to remember it, and then as soon as I have time I will do it (or the efficiency weights, we might want to do a refactory after this other PR #255). In general I would merge this PR after #255 (to avoid @strogolo to resolve conflicts), but I would not wait for the refactory of the weights since the script for the results might be useful to @zhangbiao-phy @xinyepeng for the D0)

@fcatalan92
Copy link
Member

@fgrosa Fine for me

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.

None yet

2 participants