finish discussion

latex/document.tex

@@ -44,6 +44,8 @@ captions=nooneline,captions=tableabove,english,DIV=16,numbers=noenddot,final]{sc
 \input{./tex/pheno/setup.tex}
 \input{./tex/pheno/discussion.tex}
 
+\input{./tex/summary.tex}
+
 \clearpage
 \appendix
 \pagenumbering{roman}

latex/tex/introduction.tex

@@ -53,7 +53,8 @@ otherwise. The fine structure constant's value \(\alpha = 1/137.036\)
 is configured in \sherpa\ and used in analytic calculations.
 
 The compatibility of histograms is tested as discussed in
-\cref{sec:comphist}.
+\cref{sec:comphist} and the respective \(P\) and \(T\) values are
+being included in the ratio plots.
 
 \section{Source Code}%
 \label{sec:source}

latex/tex/monte-carlo.tex

@@ -9,12 +9,12 @@
 Monte Carlo methods for multidimensional integration and sampling of
 probability distributions are central tools of modern particle
 physics. Therefore some simple methods and algorithms are being
-studied and implemented here and will be applied to the results from
-\cref{chap:qqgg}. The \verb|python| code for the implementation can be
-found as described in \cref{sec:source}. The sampling and integration
-intervals, as well as other parameters have been chosen as in
-\cref{sec:compsher} been chosen, so that \result{xs/python/eta} and
-\result{xs/python/ecm}. This chapter is based on the
-appendix~\cite{buckley:2011ge} and supplants that source with some
-derivations and more methods like the \vegas~\cite{Lepage:19781an}
-algorithm.
+studied and implemented from scratch here and will be applied to the
+results from \cref{chap:qqgg}. The \verb|python| code for the
+implementation can be found as described in \cref{sec:source}. The
+sampling and integration intervals, as well as other parameters have
+been chosen as in \cref{sec:compsher} been chosen, so that
+\result{xs/python/eta} and \result{xs/python/ecm}. This chapter is
+based on the appendix~\cite{buckley:2011ge} and supplants that source
+with some derivations and more methods like the
+\vegas~\cite{Lepage:19781an} algorithm.

latex/tex/pdf/results.tex

@@ -136,18 +136,22 @@ code. The resulting histograms of some observables are depicted in
 \result{xs/python/pdf/samp_eff} using a total of
 \result{xs/python/pdf/num_increments} hypercubes.
 
-The distributions are more or less compatible with each other
+The histograms are more or less compatible with each other
 \footnote{See \cref{sec:comphist} for a description of the
   compatibility test.}. In all cases the difference between
 \(T\)-Value and the mean of the \(\chi^2\) distribution for that value
 (\(=50\), the number of bins) is less then the standard deviation
 (\(=10\)) of the same distribution and thus the histograms are
-considered compatible. The very steep distributions for \(\pt\) and
-\(m_{\gamma\gamma}\) are especially sensitive to fluctuations and the
-systemic errors introduced of the weight of each hypercube. Therefore
-their formal measure of compatibility, the \(P\)-Value, is rather
-low. This shows that the error in the determination of the weights for
-the hypercubes should be studied more carefully.
+considered compatible. The angular distributions for
+\(\eta, \cos\theta\) show agreeable \(P\)-values, but the very steep
+distributions for \(\pt\) and \(m_{\gamma\gamma}\) are especially
+sensitive to fluctuations and the systemic errors introduced of the
+weight of each hypercube. Therefore their formal measure of
+compatibility, the \(P\)-Value, is rather low. This indicates that the
+MC error in the determination of the weights for the hypercubes should
+be studied more carefully and highlights the disadvantage of the
+sampling method chosen here. The kinematics and PDF values were
+compared with sherpa and proved to be equivalent.
 
 The \sherpa\ runcard utilized here and the analysis used to produce
 the histograms can be found in

latex/tex/pheno/discussion.tex

@@ -19,33 +19,13 @@
 
 \begin{figure}[ht]
   \centering
-  \begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\textwidth}
-    \rivethist{pheno/cos_theta}
-    \caption{\label{fig:disc-cos_theta}}
-  \end{subfigure}
-  \begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\textwidth}
-    \rivethist{pheno/eta}
-    \caption{\label{fig:disc-eta}}
-  \end{subfigure}
   \begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\textwidth}
     \rivethist{pheno/total_pT}
     \caption{\label{fig:disc-total_pT}}
   \end{subfigure}
   \begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\textwidth}
-    \rivethist{pheno/inv_m}
-    \caption{\label{fig:disc-inv_m}}
-  \end{subfigure}
-  \begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\textwidth}
-    \rivethist{pheno/o_angle}
-    \caption{\label{fig:disc-o_angle}}
-  \end{subfigure}
-\end{figure}
-%
-\begin{figure}[t]
-  \centering \ContinuedFloat
-  \begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\textwidth}
-    \rivethist{pheno/o_angle_cs}
-    \caption{\label{fig:disc-o_angle_cs}}
+    \rivethist{pheno/azimuthal_angle}
+    \caption{\label{fig:disc-azimuthal_angle}}
   \end{subfigure}
   \begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\textwidth}
     \rivethist{pheno/pT}
@@ -56,56 +36,76 @@
     \caption{\label{fig:disc-pT_subl}}
   \end{subfigure}
   \begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\textwidth}
-    \rivethist{pheno/azimuthal_angle}
-    \caption{\label{fig:disc-azimuthal_angle}}
+    \rivethist{pheno/inv_m}
+    \caption{\label{fig:disc-inv_m}}
+  \end{subfigure}
+\end{figure}
+%
+\begin{figure}[t]
+  \centering \ContinuedFloat
+  \begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\textwidth}
+    \rivethist{pheno/cos_theta}
+    \caption{\label{fig:disc-cos_theta}}
+  \end{subfigure}
+  \begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\textwidth}
+    \rivethist{pheno/eta}
+    \caption{\label{fig:disc-eta}}
+  \end{subfigure}
+  \begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\textwidth}
+    \rivethist{pheno/o_angle}
+    \caption{\label{fig:disc-o_angle}}
+  \end{subfigure}
+  \begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\textwidth}
+    \rivethist{pheno/o_angle_cs}
+    \caption{\label{fig:disc-o_angle_cs}}
   \end{subfigure}
-
   \caption{\label{fig:holhistos} Histograms of observables generated
     by simulations with increasingly more effects turned on.}
 \end{figure}
 %
 The results of the \sherpa\ runs for each stage with \(10^7\) events
 each are depicted in the histograms in \cref{fig:holhistos} and shall
-now be discussed in detail.
-%TODO: high prec not possible
-Because of the analysis cuts, the total number of accepted events is
-smaller than the number of events generated by \sherpa, but sufficient
-for proper statistics for most observables. The fiducial cross
-sections of the different stages, which are compared in
-\cref{fig:disc-xs}, differ as a result.
-% TODO: not as result
-
-All other histograms
-are normalized to their respective cross sections.
+now be discussed in detail.\footnote{A higher precision study was not
+  possible due to unavailability of access to the \emph{Taurus}
+  cluster at the time of writing.}  Because of the analysis cuts, the
+total number of accepted events is smaller than the number of events
+generated by \sherpa, but sufficient for proper statistics for most
+observables. Also the fiducial cross sections of the different stages,
+which are compared in \cref{fig:disc-xs}, differ as a result of the
+NLO effects that have been switched on. All histograms are normalized
+to their respective cross sections.
 
 Effects that give the photon system additional $\pt$ decrease the
-cross section. This can be understood as follows. When there is no
+cross section This can be understood as follows. When there is no
 additional \(\pt\), then the photon momenta are back to back in the
-plane perpendicular to the beam axis (transverse plane). If the system
-now gets a kick then this usually subtracts \(\pt\) from one of the
-photons unless that kick is near perpendicular to the photons. Because
-the \(\pt\) distribution (\cref{fig:disc-pT,fig:disc-pT_subl}) is very
-steep, a lot of events produce photons with low \(\pt\) and so this
-effect is substantial. The fraction of events that have been discarded
-by the \(\eta\) and \(\pt\) cuts are plotted in
-\cref{fig:disc-cut-disc}, which shows an increase for all stages after
-\stone, leading (principally) to the drop in cross section for the
-\sttwo\ and \stthree.
+plane perpendicular to the beam axis (transverse plane). Because
+four-momentum conservation is enforced, every emission from a parton
+gives a recoil momentum to that parton. If the system now gets a
+recoil from parton showering, then this usually subtracts \(\pt\) from
+one of the photons unless that recoil is near perpendicular to the
+photons. Because the \(\pt\) distribution
+(\cref{fig:disc-pT,fig:disc-pT_subl}) is very steep, a lot of events
+produce photons with low \(\pt\) and so this effect is
+substantial. The fraction of events that have been discarded by the
+\(\eta\) and \(\pt\) cuts are plotted in \cref{fig:disc-cut-disc},
+which shows an increase for all stages after \stone, leading
+(principally) to the drop in cross section for the \sttwo\ and
+\stthree.
 
 The isolation cuts do affect the cross section as well, as is
 demonstrated in \cref{fig:disc-iso-disc} which shows the fraction of
 events discarded due to the isolation cuts. The \stfour\ cross section
 is a bit higher than the \stthree\ one, because the hardonization
-favors isolation of photons by reducing the number of particles in the
-final state and clustering them closer together. The opposite effect
-can be seen with MI, where the number of final state particles is
-increased and this effect leads to another substantial drop in the
-cross section.
-% TODO: analysis plot of rejected events?
-% TODO: link to CS frame
-% TODO: iso cuts
-% TODO: hadr isolation? why
-% TODO: teilchen aufgefaechert, weniger in cone, teilchen ohne calo
+favors isolation of photons by reducing the collinearity the of
+particles in the final state and may create particles like neutrinos
+that show in the detectors at all or can easily identified
+(muons). The opposite effect can be seen with MI, where the number of
+final state particles is increased and this effect leads to another
+substantial drop in the cross section.
+
+Also the NLO nature of the effects in the stages after \stone\ reduces
+cross section, for instance by ``adding coupling constants'' for each
+shower emission or multiple interaction.
 
 The transverse momentum of the photon system (see
 \cref{fig:disc-total_pT}) now becomes non trivial, as both the \sttwo\
@@ -115,24 +115,34 @@ involved in the hard process and thus generates transverse momentum
 and primordial \(\pt\) is simulated by the \stthree\ stage. In regions
 of high \(\pt\) all but the \stone\ stage are largely compatible,
 falling off steeply at
-\(\mathcal{O}(\SI{10}{\giga\electronvolt})\). In the region of
+\(\mathcal{O}(\SI{10}{\giga\electronvolt})\). Because parton showers
+are modeled in the collienar limit, they cannot necessarily be trusted
+in higher \(\pt\) regions~\cite{buckley:2011ge}.
+
+The partons in a proton are somewhat localized and thus the
+uncertainty principle demands that those partons have some momentum
+perpendicular to the proton motion. The default parameters in \sherpa\
+assign transverse momenta according to a Gaussian distribution with a
+mean and standard deviation of \gev{.8}.  In the region of
 \SI{1}{\giga\electronvolt} and below, the effects primordial \(\pt\)
-show as an enhancement in cross section. This is consistent with the
-mean of the primordial \(\pt\) distribution which was off the order of
-\gev{1}. The distribution for MI is enhanced at very low \(\pt\) which
-could be an isolation effect or stem from the fact, that other partons
-can emit QCD bremsstrahlung and showers as well, decreasing the
-showering probability for the partons involved in the hard scattering.
+show as an enhancement in cross section.
+% The distribution for MI is
+% enhanced at very low \(\pt\) which could be an isolation effect or
+% stem from the fact, that other partons can emit QCD bremsstrahlung and
+% showers as well, decreasing the showering probability for the partons
+% involved in the hard scattering.
 % TODO: clarify, Frank
 The fact that the distribution has a maximum and falls off towards
 lower \(\pt\) relates to the fact, that parton shower algorithms
-effectively sum over all terms of the perturbation series and is
-nontrivial~\cite{buckley:2011ge}.
+effectively sum over all terms of the perturbation
+series~\cite{buckley:2011ge}.
 
 Related effects can be seen in the distribution for the azimuthal
-separation of the photons in \cref{fig:disc-azimuthal_angle}. Albeit
-back to back photons are favored by all distributions and most events
-feature an azimuthal separation of less than \(\pi/2\), the
+separation of the photons in \cref{fig:disc-azimuthal_angle}.
+
+Back to back photons are favored by all distributions because
+deviations from this configuration are purely NLO effects, so most
+events feature an azimuthal separation of less than \(\pi/2\).  The
 enhancement of the low \(\pt\) regions in the \stthree\ stage also
 leads to an enhancement in the back-to-back region for this stage over
 the \sttwo\ stage.
@@ -145,23 +155,23 @@ compatible beyond \gev{1}. Again, the effect of primordial \(\pt\)
 becomes visible transverse momenta smaller than \gev{1}.
 % TODO: mention steepness again
 
-The \(\pt\) distribution for the sub-leading photon shows remarkable
-resemblance to the \stone\ distribution for all other stages, although
-there is a very minute bias to lower \(\pt\). This is consistent with
-the mechanism described above so that events that subtract (very small
-amounts of) \(\pt\) from the sub-leading second photon are more
-common. Interestingly, the effects of primordial \(\pt\) not very
-visible.
+The \(\pt\) distribution for the sub-leading photon (see
+\cref{fig:disc-pT_subl}) shows remarkable resemblance to the \stone\
+distribution for all other stages, although there is a very minute
+bias to lower \(\pt\). This is consistent with the mechanism described
+above so that events that subtract (very small amounts of) \(\pt\)
+from the sub-leading second photon are more common. Interestingly, the
+effects of primordial \(\pt\) not very visible.
 
-The distribution for the invariant mass (see \cref{fig:disc-inv_m})
-shows that events with lower c.m.\ energies than the \stone\ threshold
-can pass the cuts by being \(\pt\) boosted. The decline of the cross
-section towards lower energies is much steeper than the PDF-induced
-decline towards higher energies. High \(\pt\) boost to \emph{both}
-photons are very rare, which supports the reasoning about the drop in
-total cross section. The tendency for higher \(\pt\) boosts of the
-photon system in the \sttwo\ stage shows in a slight enhancement of
-the \sttwo\ cross section at low \(\pt > \gev{2}\).
+In leading order, the phase space cuts impose a hard lower bound to
+the invariant mass of the photon system. Parton showers can give
+recoil momentum to the partons in such a way, that events with lower
+invariant mass pass the cuts. The distribution for the invariant mass
+(see \cref{fig:disc-inv_m}) shows that effect. The decline of the
+cross section towards lower energies is much steeper than the
+PDF-induced decline towards higher energies. High \(\pt\) boost to
+\emph{both} photons are very rare (+ NLO suppressed), which supports
+the reasoning about the drop in total cross section.
 
 The angular distributions of the leading photon in
 \cref{fig:disc-cos_theta,fig:disc-eta} are most affected by the
@@ -182,13 +192,15 @@ cross section distributions are similar in shape extends further. In
 the CS frame effects of the non-zero \(\pt\) of the photon system are
 (somewhat weakly) suppressed.
 
-It becomes clear, that the \sttwo\ and \stthree\ have the biggest
-effect on the shape of observables, as they affect kinematics
-directly. Isolation effects show most with the \stfour\ and especially
-the \stfive\ stages. In angular observables hard process alone gives a
-reasonably good qualitative picture, but in most other observables
-non-LO effects introduce considerable deviations and have to be taken
-into account.
+It becomes clear, that parton showering and the primordial transverse
+momentum have the biggest effect on the shape of observables, as they
+affect the kinematics of the diphoton process directly. Isolation
+effects show most through hadronization and especially multiple
+interactions. In observables that exist in leading order
+(\(\eta, \pt\), \ldots), the hard process alone gives a reasonably
+good qualitative picture, but in most other observables non-LO effects
+introduce considerable deviations and have to be taken into account
+for a realistic study. Even with this simple process.
 
 %%% LOCAL Variables:
 %%% mode: latex

latex/tex/pheno/setup.tex

@@ -9,11 +9,11 @@ listed below.
 %
 \begin{description}
 \item[LO] The hard process on parton level as used in \cref{sec:pdf_results}.
-\item[LO+PS] The shower generator of \sherpa, \emph{CSS}
-  (dipole-shower), is activated and simulates initial state
-  radiation. The recoil scheme proposed in~\cite{hoeche2009:ha}, which
-  has been proven more accurate for diphoton production at leading
-  order, has been enabled.
+\item[LO+PS] The shower generator of \sherpa,
+  \emph{CSShower}~\cite{schumann2008:ap} (dipole-shower), is activated and
+  simulates initial state radiation. The recoil scheme proposed
+  in~\cite{hoeche2009:ha}, which has been proven more accurate for
+  diphoton production at leading order, has been enabled.
 \item[LO+PS+pT] The beam remnants are simulated, giving rise to
   aditional radiation and parton showers.  Also the partons are being
   assigned primordial \(\pt\), distributed like a Gaussian with a mean
@@ -21,13 +21,14 @@ listed below.
   \SI{.8}{\giga\electronvolt}\footnote{Those values are \sherpa 's
     defaults.}.
 \item[LO+PS+pT+Hadronization] A cluster hadronization model
-  implemented in \emph{Ahadic} is activated. The shower particles are
-  being hadronized and the decay of the resulting hadrons simulated if
-  they are unstable.
+  implemented in \emph{Ahadic}~\cite{Winter2003:tt} is
+  activated. The shower particles are being hadronized and the decay
+  of the resulting hadrons simulated if they are unstable.
 \item[LO+PS+pT+Hadronization+MI] Multiple Interactions (MI) based on
-  the Sj\"ostrand-van-Zijl Model are simulated. The MI are parton
-  shower corrected, so that there are generally more particles in the
-  final state.
+  the Sj\"ostrand-van-Zijl Model are simulated with
+  \emph{Amisic}~\cite{Bothmann:2019yzt}. The MI are parton shower
+  corrected, so that there are generally more particles in the final
+  state.
 \end{description}
 %
 A detailed description of the implementation of those models can be
@@ -39,7 +40,7 @@ configuration can be found in \cref{sec:ppruncardfull}. The
 are the same as in \cref{sec:ppxs} and the beam energies have been
 chosen as \SI{6500}{\giga\electronvolt} to resemble \lhc\ conditions.
 The cuts on the hard process have been loosened to
-\(\pt \geq \SI{5}{\giga\electronvolt}\) and \(\abs{\eta}\leq 3\) to
+\(\pt \geq \SI{5}{\giga\electronvolt}\) and \(\abs{\eta}\leq 3\)
 because jets and primordial \(\pt\) can increase the final state
 \(\pt\) to fall into the analysis cuts.
 
@@ -58,19 +59,16 @@ from hadron decays, the analysis only selects prompt photons with the
 highest \(\pt\) (leading photons). Furthermore a cone of
 \[R = \sqrt{\qty(\Delta\varphi)^2 + \qty(\Delta\eta)^2} \leq 0.4\]
 around each photon must not contain more than \SI{4.5}{\percent} of
-the photon transverse momentum (\(+ \SI{6}{\giga\electronvolt}\)),
-attempting to exclude photons stemming from hadron decay are filtered
-out. The leading photons are required to have \(\Delta R > 0.45\), to
-filter out colinear photons, as they likely stem from hadron
-decays.
-% TODO: only for experiments, do not overlap photon iso cones, einfach
-% weglassen
-
-In truth, the analysis already excludes such photons, but to
-be compatible with experimental data, which must rely on such
+the photon transverse momentum (\(+ \SI{6}{\giga\electronvolt}\)), to
+simulate experimental photon isolation. The leading photons are
+required to have \(\Delta R > 0.45\), to filter photons with
+overlapping isolation cones, which would be hard to isolate in
+experiments. In truth, the analysis already excludes such photons,
+but to be compatible with experimental data, which must rely on such
 criteria, they have been included. These cuts are called
 \emph{isolation cuts}. The code of the analysis is listed in
-\cref{sec:ppanalysisfull}.
+\cref{sec:ppanalysisfull} and has been adapted from code privately
+communicated by Frank Siegert and Heberth Torres.
 
 The production of photons in showers has not been considered.
 

latex/thesis.bib

@@ -262,3 +262,51 @@
   location =     {Austin, Texas},
   series =       {LLVM ’15}
 }
+
+@article{hoeche2009:ha,
+  author =       {Hoeche, Stefan and Schumann, Steffen and Siegert,
+                  Frank},
+  year =         {2009},
+  month =        {12},
+  pages =        {},
+  title =        {Hard photon production and matrix-element
+                  parton-shower merging},
+  volume =       {81},
+  journal =      {Physical Review D},
+  doi =          {10.1103/PhysRevD.81.034026}
+}
+
+@misc{porter2008:te,
+  title =        {Testing Consistency of Two Histograms},
+  author =       {Frank C. Porter},
+  year =         {2008},
+  eprint =       {0804.0380},
+  archivePrefix ={arXiv},
+  primaryClass = {physics.data-an}
+}
+
+@article{schumann2008:ap,
+  author =       {Schumann, Steffen and Krauss, Frank},
+  year =         {2008},
+  month =        {03},
+  pages =        {038},
+  title =        {A parton shower algorithm based on Catani-Seymour
+                  dipole factorisation},
+  volume =       {2008},
+  journal =      {Journal of High Energy Physics},
+  doi =          {10.1088/1126-6708/2008/03/038}
+}
+
+@article{Winter2003:tt,
+  author =       "Winter, Jan-Christopher and Krauss, Frank and Soff,
+                  Gerhard",
+  title =        "{A Modified cluster hadronization model}",
+  eprint =       "hep-ph/0311085",
+  archivePrefix ="arXiv",
+  reportNumber = "CERN-TH-2003-272",
+  doi =          "10.1140/epjc/s2004-01960-8",
+  journal =      "Eur. Phys. J. C",
+  volume =       "36",
+  pages =        "381--395",
+  year =         "2004"
+}

notes.org

@@ -172,10 +172,13 @@ Viele Gruesse, Frank
 ** what does inclusive mean
 ** Normalize to XS
 ** y axis label for normalized histos
-** TODO PDF cannot be derived: in principle?
-** TODO still compatible?
-** TODO cite atlas paper (analysis?)
-** TODO call it distribution?
+** DONE PDF cannot be derived: in principle?
+** DONE still compatible?
+** DONE cite atlas paper (analysis?)
+** DONE call it distribution?
+** DONE diphoton caps?
+** DONE do remnants radiate?
+** TODO ask about nlo emissions
 * Work Log
 ** 18.03
  - habe mich in manche konzeptionelle Dinge ziemlich verrannt!
@@ -183,12 +186,13 @@ Viele Gruesse, Frank
 * Todo
 ** TODO lab xs kuerzen
 ** TODO shower scale anpassen
-** TODO effekt shower und kperp
+** DONE effekt shower und kperp
 ** DONE y-axis a.u.!
 ** DONE mean, var einzeichnen
 ** DONE Variance of vegas weighted f!
 ** DONE look at xs plot -> they seem different
 ** DONE take new sample: still bias?
+** DONE umnumerieren
 
 * Observations
 ** XS
@@ -264,3 +268,46 @@ Viele Gruesse, Frank
  - biggest effect is the jet kick, photons are no qcd particles and
    not touched after hard process
  - no em radiation activated: would add more noise, here no additional photons
+
+
+426 .. ref for CSS
+433/436 .. refs
+443 .. to zu viel
+448 .. azimuthal
+451 .. verb zu viel
+452 .. collinear
+
+kick -> recoil, klarer, momentum conservation am anfang! 481/6708
+
+primordial pT, erklaeren fermi motion
+
+figs umsortieren
+
+484 .. often
+off the orderd -> of
+
+ok .. pT > 1e-1 MI schwer zu sagen, uninteressant, weglassen, nicht messbar
+
+discuss -> parton shower collinear limes naeherung
+ (falling off steeply), kein grosses pT, keine gute naeherung in > 10 GeV
+
+
+nontrivial feater of .. modeling
+
+
+492 .. back to back preference -> nur folge der nlo unterdrueck
+
+was ist LO threshhold, durch pT cuts
+ist keine c.m. energy -> inv mass
+
+very rare -> higher order (α_s kleiner) harte qcd kosten!
+
+inv m LO+PS nicht verschieben 510 .. 511
+
+524 .. welcher effekt
+
+bigger picture .. lo bild -> geeignet, auch einfache betroffen (auch am anfang) uberall auswirkung
+
+outlook very simple, nlo ME verwenden, fragmentation aus parton (dijet), neue photon iso + viel mehr
+
+chi^2 test

prog/runcards/pp_phaeno_299_port/qqgg_proton/MC_DIPHOTON_PROTON.info

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ Beams: [2212, 2212]
 Energies: [6500, 6500]
 #Luminosity_fb: 139.0
 Description:
-  'An analysis used to compare different configuration of the Sherpa event generator.'
+  'An analysis used to compare different configurations of the Sherpa event generator.'
 ValidationInfo:
   'Not validated'
 #ReleaseTests:

prog/runcards/pp_phaeno_299_port/qqgg_proton/MC_DIPHOTON_PROTON.plot

@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ Title=$m_{\gamma\gamma}$ of the two leading photons
 XLabel=$m_{\gamma\gamma}$ [GeV]
 YLabel=$\mathrm{d}\sigma/\mathrm{d}m_{\gamma\gamma}$ [pb GeV$^{-1}$]
 LogX=1
-XMin=1
+XMin=10.5
 XMax=2000
 # END PLOT
 
@@ -73,6 +73,7 @@ XLabel=$\pT$
 YLabel=$\mathrm{d}\sigma/\mathrm{d}\pT_{\gamma\gamma}$ [pb GeV$^{-1}$]
 LogY=1
 LogX=1
+XMin=1e-1
 # END PLOT
 
 # BEGIN PLOT /MC_DIPHOTON_PROTON/xs