Add PDF4LHC21 cards #121

cschwan · 2022-01-04T18:46:17Z

No description provided.

cschwan · 2022-01-04T18:51:43Z

@Radonirinaunimi here's first shot at the distribution @juanrojochacon wants for PDF4LHC21. However, the integration dies after step 0 because not enough points pass through the cuts:

ERROR: NOT ENOUGH POINTS PASS THE CUTS. RESULTS CANNOT BE TRUSTED. LOOSEN THE GENERATION CUTS, OR ADAPT SET_TAU_MIN() IN SETCUTS.F ACCORDINGLY.

What I don't understand is that I've already increased the value of tau_min to 1 TeV. @marcozaro do you have any idea what I can do?

Radonirinaunimi · 2022-01-04T21:17:29Z

@Radonirinaunimi here's first shot at the distribution @juanrojochacon wants for PDF4LHC21. However, the integration dies after step 0 because not enough points pass through the cuts:
ERROR: NOT ENOUGH POINTS PASS THE CUTS. RESULTS CANNOT BE TRUSTED. LOOSEN THE GENERATION CUTS, OR ADAPT SET_TAU_MIN() IN SETCUTS.F ACCORDINGLY.
What I don't understand is that I've already increased the value of tau_min to 1 TeV. @marcozaro do you have any idea what I can do?

Thanks @cschwan for having had an attempt in generating this grid. I haven't started generating the actual grid yet as I am still trying to sort out some hiccups with poetry (related to pip caching) when installing on the nikhef cluster. I will open an issue tomorrow if I don't manage to find a way around this now. What I can do in the meantime is to run the card that you just pushed on my local machine in which everything works fine.

cschwan · 2022-01-05T09:13:17Z

@marcozaro here's the full log, with print *, mll, obs statements to check when points are fed to anaysis.f: log.txt

juanrojochacon · 2022-01-05T17:50:17Z

This is very odd @cschwan @Radonirinaunimi - is this a grid problem or also happens with standalone mg5? If you reduce tau_min all the way down to the kinematic limit do you still get this problem? I think that provided we generate events somewhat above the Z pole we should be fine with statistics ...

cschwan · 2022-01-05T20:22:11Z

@juanrojochacon this is a problem in step 0, where no grid has been generated yet (that only happens in step 1), so a general problem. What I don't understand is why so few points end up in analysis.f, as you can see in the logfile I sent to Marco. I have a few ideas I'll try tomorrow.

Radonirinaunimi · 2022-01-06T22:27:54Z

@cschwan If I use the run card PDF4LHC_DY_13_TEV_21_PHENO, what I get are the following:

first, when setting up the grids, I get the warning:

WARNING: program 
/home/tanjona/Documents/N3PDF/runcards/PDF4LHC_DY_13_TEV_21_PHENO-20220106214356/PDF4LHC_DY_13_TEV_21_PHENO/SubProcesses/P0_uxu_mummup/ajob1 
1 all 0 0 launch ends with non zero status: 1. Stop all computation

then, an exception is raised that leads the program to stop:

Command "launch auto " interrupted with error:
Exception: program 
/home/tanjona/Documents/N3PDF/runcards/PDF4LHC_DY_13_TEV_21_PHENO-20220106214356/PDF4LHC_DY_13_TEV_21_PHENO/SubProcesses/P0_uxu_mummup/ajob1 
1 all 0 0 launch ends with non zero status: 1. Stop all computation

Obviously, the call to pineappl also fails as a result. Is this the same error that you get?

cschwan · 2022-01-07T07:08:07Z

@Radonirinaunimi yes, thanks for reproducing the error!

Radonirinaunimi · 2022-01-07T09:08:37Z

@Radonirinaunimi yes, thanks for reproducing the error!

Is there something I should check/investigate in the meantime?

cschwan · 2022-01-07T09:44:52Z

@Radonirinaunimi not at this point, thanks!

cschwan · 2022-01-07T10:42:33Z

I don't understand exactly why Madgraph5 crashed, but since I've imposed a minimum invariant mass cut on the lepton pair, it seems to correctly set the minimum invariant of the partonic process. I've updated the parameters, so this should be ready for a production run. @Radonirinaunimi would you please take care of that? Run it with theory 200, in the following way:

./rr run PDF4LHC_DY_13_TEV_21_PHENO theories/theory_200_1.yaml

Radonirinaunimi · 2022-01-07T10:45:34Z

I don't understand exactly why Madgraph5 crashed, but since I've imposed a minimum invariant mass cut on the lepton pair, it seems to correctly set the minimum invariant of the partonic process. I've updated the parameters, so this should be ready for a production run. @Radonirinaunimi would you please take care of that? Run it with theory 200, in the following way:
./rr run PDF4LHC_DY_13_TEV_21_PHENO theories/theory_200_1.yaml

Thanks! I will try this now.

juanrojochacon · 2022-01-07T10:46:54Z

Good, very nice. Indeed, the mll generation cut is the one I proposed originally, so I thought we were already imposing it

juanrojochacon · 2022-01-07T10:47:50Z

anyway, provided it works we should be fine. We can use mll > 200 Gev or something. btw @Radonirinaunimi please generate grids also for the CC process (everything else identical, so adapting the runcard would be trivial)

Radonirinaunimi · 2022-01-07T11:00:23Z

Good, very nice. Indeed, the mll generation cut is the one I proposed originally, so I thought we were already imposing it

@juanrojochacon I think @cschwan is stating the opposite. As far as I understand Christopher's last changes (which indeed work on my local computer, I will send to the cluster later), it works upon removing the minimum cut (there might be a typos in his message above).

juanrojochacon · 2022-01-07T11:01:33Z

@cschwan says " since I've imposed a minimum invariant mass cut on the lepton pair, it seems to correctly set the minimum invariant of the partonic process". Before we has imposing a different cut I think

cschwan · 2022-01-07T11:07:23Z

The problem was that imposing both a cut on the partonic centre-of-mass energy (Madgraph5 calls it tau_min) and the lepton invariant mass mll made Madgraph5 crash. At LO these two variables are the same, and Madgraph5 correctly calculates tau_min from the mll cut.

cschwan · 2022-01-07T11:19:36Z

@juanrojochacon the fact that the invariant mass of the lepton-neutrino system isn't a collider observable isn't a problem for this exercise, right?

juanrojochacon · 2022-01-07T11:32:05Z

Not at all, this is just for a "theory" exercise, we don't want to reproduce any exp measurement. And this way it is easier to compare the NC and CC calculations, and to connect the results with the possible issue of negative PDFs at large-x

cschwan · 2022-01-07T11:34:46Z

Alright, thanks for confirming that.

cschwan · 2022-01-10T16:36:24Z

@marcozaro could you please have a look at the charged current process and tell us what's wrong with it? We have a large invariant mass cut on the lepton-neutrino system, but Madgraph5 complains about too few points coming through the cuts. We've adjusted tau_min, but that doesn't seem to help.

marcozaro · 2022-01-11T19:49:56Z

Hi,
running
./run.sh PDF4LHC_WP_13_TEV_21_PHENO

I get this error:
patching file SubProcesses/setscales.f
Hunk #1 succeeded at 540 (offset 13 lines).
Hunk #2 succeeded at 592 (offset 13 lines).
/home/marcozaro/MadGraph/runcards/PDF4LHC_WP_13_TEV_21_PHENO-20220111170402
Error: unrecognised cut: mmlnumin

Any idea?
Cheers,

Marco

cschwan · 2022-01-12T07:12:55Z

@marcozaro ./run.sh is outdated and we don't use it anymore. Please use ./rr instead, see also the README. You should run

./rr install first to install all Python dependencies and
./rr run PDF4LHC_WP_13_TEV_21_PHENO theories/theory_200_1.yaml to generate the grid.

juanrojochacon · 2022-01-12T15:25:54Z

Thanks again @cschwan @Radonirinaunimi for producing these numbers. I have processed them and everything looks as expected: around 15% of the replicas are negative, but the median and 68%CL ranges are unaffected. So this is reassuring.

If the same holds for the CC process, then we are done.

Note that if imposing cuts is too difficult just generate events for pp => W, this should be sufficient and should work out of the box right?

cschwan · 2022-01-12T15:30:42Z

@juanrojochacon if we generate CC without cuts the invariant mass will be close to the W-boson mass where the PDFs are typically fine, so I don't think that'll give us much.

juanrojochacon · 2022-01-12T15:33:16Z

I see. Can you try generating W => u dbar? This way there is no neutrino, and this is really identical to NC then ...

marcozaro · 2022-01-12T15:34:43Z

Hi, I am investigating the issue of the invariant mass in CC. Looks like the born momenta are always generated with a W boson close to mass shell, despite the changes in setcuts. I will discuss with Rikkert, who knows a lot about the phase-space, and let you know.

…

On 12 Jan 2022, at 16:30, Christopher Schwan ***@***.***> wrote: @juanrojochacon <https://github.com/juanrojochacon> if we generate CC without cuts the invariant mass will be close to the W-boson mass where the PDFs are typically fine, so I don't think that'll give us much. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#121 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHECN5DAXQGK7NV5WFPUXA3UVWNC3ANCNFSM5LIDU7EA>. Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS <https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.

marcozaro · 2022-01-12T15:36:28Z

@juanrojochacon if we generate CC without cuts the invariant mass will be close to the W-boson mass where the PDFs are typically fine, so I don't think that'll give us much.

Given that you have rather large bins, you may give it a try with setting a very high accuracy target…

marcozaro · 2022-01-12T15:37:17Z

I see. Can you try generating W => u dbar? This way there is no neutrino, and this is really identical to NC then ...

no, don't do so, as you will also have t-channels and a lot of other stuff around (essntially, dijet at order alpha^2)

marcozaro · 2022-01-12T15:50:11Z

Rikkert suggested the following:

_The easiest is to remove the cut from cuts.f. Then use the bias-function (in cuts.f) to enhance the large mass region and apply the cut in the analysis file.

For fixed-order runs this is only working since 3.3.1 (I think). For event generation this has been around longer already._

We need to check that the bias is properly accounted for with PineAPPL...

Cheers,

Marco

cschwan · 2022-01-12T16:02:09Z

@marcozaro the bias_weight_function sounds very useful, I'll look into that.

cschwan · 2022-01-18T14:21:53Z

@marcozaro I'm currently looking into this with @Radonirinaunimi and we're wondering whether the bias (we've set it to M_lv^3, the invariant mass of the charged lepton and the neutrino cubed) is correctly removed from the PineAPPL grid. Could you check that?

Radonirinaunimi · 2022-01-19T14:21:01Z

@cschwan So, there is something wrong with 921dd2e. The run never finished so I checked again and the whole folder is taking up a whopping 265GB of the disk. The only thing I changed was the accuracy set req_acc_FO 0.0001. I should mention that this was at the level of step 3.

cschwan · 2022-01-19T14:37:48Z

Did I forget to comment out some write/print statements? Have a look at size of the files, please.

Radonirinaunimi · 2022-01-19T14:49:52Z

Did I forget to comment out some write/print statements? Have a look at size of the files, please.

There was one write statement that was copied from cuts.f to the patch. I commented it out and ran again the process but right now still waiting.

juanrojochacon · 2022-01-27T17:04:31Z

Hi @Radonirinaunimi I would like to get the same numbers as per above

Prediction per replicas for last bin:
PDF4LHC21_nnlo_mc: PDF4LHC21_nnlo_mc.txt

but for the rest of the rapidity bins. Would that be possible? This way we can show that the issue of cross-section negativity becomes only important at the highest mass bin.

Thanks!!!

juanrojochacon · 2022-01-27T17:05:16Z

also, can you remind me what are the units of the cross-section?

Radonirinaunimi · 2022-01-27T17:45:23Z

Hi @Radonirinaunimi I would like to get the same numbers as per above

Prediction per replicas for last bin: PDF4LHC21_nnlo_mc: PDF4LHC21_nnlo_mc.txt

but for the rest of the rapidity bins. Would that be possible? This way we can show that the issue of cross-section negativity becomes only important at the highest mass bin.

@juanrojochacon Yes! That is possible. I will produce them and post here the results.

also, can you remind me what are the units of the cross-section?

For the differential distribution, the cross-section is expressed in pb/GeV.

Radonirinaunimi · 2022-01-27T21:37:33Z

@juanrojochacon, here are the results of PDF4LHC21_nnlo_mc_${BIN}.txt:

BIN	Pred/replica
0	PDF4LHC21_nnlo_mc_0.txt
1	PDF4LHC21_nnlo_mc_1.txt
2	PDF4LHC21_nnlo_mc_2.txt
3	PDF4LHC21_nnlo_mc_3.txt
4	PDF4LHC21_nnlo_mc_4.txt
5	PDF4LHC21_nnlo_mc_5.txt

juanrojochacon · 2022-01-28T07:41:24Z

perfect many thanks. Those of PDF4LHC21_nnlo_mc_5.txt are the ones you produced already right?

Radonirinaunimi · 2022-01-28T08:20:16Z

perfect many thanks. Those of PDF4LHC21_nnlo_mc_5.txt are the ones you produced already right?

Yes! These are exactly the same.

marcozaro · 2022-01-28T09:25:15Z

nnpdf31_proc/PDF4LHC_WP_13_TEV_21_PHENO/bias_large_invariant_mass.patch

-+      bias_wgt=sqrt(ppv(0)**2-ppv(1)**2-ppv(2)**2-ppv(3)**2)**3
+      xmlnu=sqrt(ppv(0)**2-ppv(1)**2-ppv(2)**2-ppv(3)**2)
+      if (xmlnu < 1000.0d0) then
+        bias_wgt=1d-10


Hi,
this is strange. How about using a smooth function, rather than a step function?
What if you set bias_wgt = xmlnu**2 for example?

Radonirinaunimi · 2022-02-16T09:47:49Z

Hi @juanrojochacon, last week in the PDF4LHC21 meeting, it was suggested to superimpose in Fig. 5.12 the distribution from META40 with positive definite PDFs (this seems to be a sensible suggestion). I am attaching below the predictions per replica and per bin (similar to the above). With the script that you have, could you perhaps add these results to the histogram plots? Or else, please let me know if you want me to take care of this.

BIN	Pred/replica
0	PDF4LHC21_40_0.txt
1	PDF4LHC21_40_1.txt
2	PDF4LHC21_40_2.txt
3	PDF4LHC21_40_3.txt
4	PDF4LHC21_40_4.txt
5	PDF4LHC21_40_5.txt

juanrojochacon · 2022-02-16T16:11:55Z

This is easy enough, I can try to do it. I am not sure it will look pretty but we can try.

However @Radonirinaunimi I don't need all this info: at the end of the day the Hessian 40 set leads to a gaussian distribution right?

So if you can process these numbers to get the central value (prediction from central pdf set) and the standard deviation I can then just superimpose a gaussian to the predictions from the prior, right?

Thanks!

Radonirinaunimi · 2022-02-16T16:41:18Z

This is easy enough, I can try to do it. I am not sure it will look pretty but we can try.

However @Radonirinaunimi I don't need all this info: at the end of the day the Hessian 40 set leads to a gaussian distribution right?

So if you can process these numbers to get the central value (prediction from central pdf set) and the standard deviation I can then just superimpose a gaussian to the predictions from the prior, right?

Thanks!

Yes, this is correct! I'll compute the means and STDs and will post them here.

juanrojochacon · 2022-02-16T17:09:21Z

ok good this saves a bit of time for me then

Radonirinaunimi · 2022-02-17T07:47:26Z

Hi @juanrojochacon, here are the numbers:

BIN	MEAN	STD
0	8.919857e-06	4.337057e-08
1	1.239431e-06	8.237900e-09
2	1.506485e-07	1.553040e-09
3	1.008828e-08	2.711993e-10
4	9.593871e-10	6.905776e-11
5	6.545579e-11	1.229484e-11

juanrojochacon · 2022-02-17T07:58:01Z

Got them. This is the script I used:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cjonu7tl9i44xuu/negative_xsecs.tgz?dl=0

Would you mind adding the pdf4lhc21_40 gaussian distributions yourself? I am a bit swamped with tesching.

Thanks, Juan

Radonirinaunimi · 2022-02-17T08:24:10Z

Got them. This is the script I used:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cjonu7tl9i44xuu/negative_xsecs.tgz?dl=0

Would you mind adding the pdf4lhc21_40 gaussian distributions yourself? I am a bit swamped with tesching.

Thanks, Juan

Sure! I can do that!

Radonirinaunimi · 2023-06-18T20:20:14Z

Closing as completed.

Add tentative PDF4LHC21 cards

68b2a1e

cschwan linked an issue Jan 4, 2022 that may be closed by this pull request

Add PDF4LHC high invariant-mass distributions #119

Open

cschwan assigned cschwan and Radonirinaunimi Jan 7, 2022

cschwan added 2 commits January 7, 2022 11:35

Remove tau_min cut - not needed

75a4356

Set parameters to final values

76749c8

Radonirinaunimi added 2 commits January 9, 2022 15:57

Remove print statement

9cd50b3

Add preliminary CC process

660d38f

Replace minimum invariant mass list with bias

921dd2e

Enable biasing

105add9

marcozaro reviewed Jan 28, 2022

View reviewed changes

Radonirinaunimi closed this Jun 18, 2023

Add PDF4LHC21 cards #121

Add PDF4LHC21 cards #121

Conversation

cschwan commented Jan 4, 2022

cschwan commented Jan 4, 2022

Radonirinaunimi commented Jan 4, 2022

cschwan commented Jan 5, 2022

juanrojochacon commented Jan 5, 2022

cschwan commented Jan 5, 2022 • edited Loading

Radonirinaunimi commented Jan 6, 2022 • edited Loading

cschwan commented Jan 7, 2022

Radonirinaunimi commented Jan 7, 2022

cschwan commented Jan 7, 2022

cschwan commented Jan 7, 2022

Radonirinaunimi commented Jan 7, 2022

juanrojochacon commented Jan 7, 2022

juanrojochacon commented Jan 7, 2022

Radonirinaunimi commented Jan 7, 2022

juanrojochacon commented Jan 7, 2022

cschwan commented Jan 7, 2022

cschwan commented Jan 7, 2022

juanrojochacon commented Jan 7, 2022

cschwan commented Jan 7, 2022

cschwan commented Jan 10, 2022

marcozaro commented Jan 11, 2022

cschwan commented Jan 12, 2022

juanrojochacon commented Jan 12, 2022

cschwan commented Jan 12, 2022

juanrojochacon commented Jan 12, 2022

marcozaro commented Jan 12, 2022 via email

marcozaro commented Jan 12, 2022

marcozaro commented Jan 12, 2022

marcozaro commented Jan 12, 2022 • edited Loading

cschwan commented Jan 12, 2022

cschwan commented Jan 18, 2022

Radonirinaunimi commented Jan 19, 2022 • edited Loading

cschwan commented Jan 19, 2022

Radonirinaunimi commented Jan 19, 2022

juanrojochacon commented Jan 27, 2022

juanrojochacon commented Jan 27, 2022

Radonirinaunimi commented Jan 27, 2022

Radonirinaunimi commented Jan 27, 2022

juanrojochacon commented Jan 28, 2022

Radonirinaunimi commented Jan 28, 2022

marcozaro Jan 28, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Radonirinaunimi commented Feb 16, 2022

juanrojochacon commented Feb 16, 2022

Radonirinaunimi commented Feb 16, 2022

juanrojochacon commented Feb 16, 2022

Radonirinaunimi commented Feb 17, 2022

juanrojochacon commented Feb 17, 2022

Radonirinaunimi commented Feb 17, 2022

Radonirinaunimi commented Jun 18, 2023

cschwan commented Jan 5, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Radonirinaunimi commented Jan 6, 2022 •

edited

Loading

marcozaro commented Jan 12, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Radonirinaunimi commented Jan 19, 2022 •

edited

Loading