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

Implement pdf+th error for yadism grids #65

Closed
RoyStegeman opened this issue Nov 11, 2022 · 8 comments
Closed

Implement pdf+th error for yadism grids #65

RoyStegeman opened this issue Nov 11, 2022 · 8 comments

Comments

@RoyStegeman
Copy link
Member

The cli option exists, but so far only calculates the pdf error

@Radonirinaunimi
Copy link
Member

This is indeed definitely true. Actually, right now the matching of the NNUSF to the Yadism predictions at high-Q2 only account for the PDF uncertainties. This will be important when Alfonso adds uncertainties to his plots. This, I forgot to mention when we chatted this morning about the missing bit.

ATM, I am not fully certain on how to best account for this here:

def combined_error(
grid: pineappl.grid.Grid,
pdf: str,
prescription: list[tuple[float, float]],
xgrid: npt.NDArray[np.float_],
reshape: Optional[bool] = True,
) -> npt.NDArray[np.float_]:

@Radonirinaunimi
Copy link
Member

I haven't read this paper yet but would this method be consistent with what we do in the fit where PDF and Theory errors are accounted for by combining their covariance matrix in quadrature?

@RoyStegeman
Copy link
Member Author

Yes sorry it's probably a bit too cumbersome for now so I removed the comment. Should indeed be consistent with what we usually do except that it accounts for the full correlations.

@Radonirinaunimi
Copy link
Member

I see. There should be an easy way to do this, something along the lines of computing the the up and down shifts of the theory variations wrt to the central value and somehow add these information to the replicas.

@RoyStegeman
Copy link
Member Author

RoyStegeman commented Nov 11, 2022

Yes that's the default scale variations solution right; In which the observable shift observed upon performing a factor 1/2 and 2 shift of the scales is assumed equal to 1sigma (taking the largest observed shift when varying multiple scales). Then we can indeed sum the variances as you say.

I'm still not a huge fan of scale variations, but unfortunately it's the best/all we really have. Might be good to confirm with Juan before we proceed.

@Radonirinaunimi
Copy link
Member

Sorry for the late reply, we had a QCD-EFT group meeting earlier.

Yes that's the default scale variations solution right; In which the observable shift observed upon performing a factor 1/2 and 2 shift of the scales is assumed equal to 1sigma (taking the largest observed shift when varying multiple scales). Then we can indeed sum the variances as you say.

I'm still not a huge fan of scale variations, but unfortunately it's the best/all we really have. Might be good to confirm with Juan before we proceed.

Me neither! However that's the best we could do so far. Currently tough, we are already including theory errors with the 7-point scale variation in the fit as agreed with Juan in #47.

The problem I was seeing before was: how to properly account for these theory errors when dumping the Yadism predictions into a LHAPDF grid such that we are consistent with what we do in the fit? But now I think I might have an idea that I'm testing right now.

@Radonirinaunimi
Copy link
Member

Nvm, what I intended to do does not work. Back into the drawing board.

@Radonirinaunimi
Copy link
Member

Closing this as per discussion in the Slack.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants