K-factors for theory 400

[enocera]

As I'm about to replace theory 400 with the updated K factors, I have some questions.

1. May I remove the unused K-factors, e.g. all the CF_Y and CF_Z?
2. Are there any PineAPPL grids in theory 400 that are accurate to NNLO? For FT DY in particular, are the PineAPPL grids accurate to NLO or to NNLO? I'm asking because, for some data sets (DYE605, DYE906) the name of the PineAPPL grid contains explicitly a nlo string, while it does not for DYE886P and DYE886R Also, if I specify the QCD K-factors in a validphys runcard to compute , e.g. the chi2, validphys crashes for DYE886P because apparently the wrong K-factor file is matched to the PineAPPL grid (and therefore there is a mismatch in the number of data points).
3. Should I keep the [MAS] K factors for NuTeV or are these replaced by PineAPPL grids that include the infamous Jun Gao computation?

[scarlehoff]

May I remove the unused K-factors, e.g. all the CF_Y and CF_Z?

Yes.

Are there any PineAPPL grids in theory 400 that are accurate to NNLO

The accuracy of the grids in th 400 is equal to that of th 200 or I thought that was the agreement. But maybe we decided to update the FTDY? @andreab1997 was this decided at some point? Or maybe all grids were updated?

(I know that for the fit in Gargnano they were NLO and the kfactors work, as I still have that version of theory 400 in my computer and it does work for DYE886P)

Should I keep the [MAS] K factors for NuTeV or are these replaced by PineAPPL grids that include the infamous Jun Gao computation?

@felixhekhorn @alecandido ?

[scarlehoff]

@enocera @andreab1997 ok, wrt to DYE, the problem is that the yaml file in the theory 400 currently in the server has an underscore that shouldn't have. It says DYE886_P when it should be DYE886P. Not sure how that got there, but it seems that everything is NLO as expected.

[enocera]

@enocera @andreab1997 ok, wrt to DYE, the problem is that the yaml file in the theory 400 currently in the server has an underscore that shouldn't have. It says DYE886_P when it should be DYE886P. Not sure how that got there, but it seems that everything is NLO as expected.

Ah, OK, that makes sense. Thanks!

[alecandido]

Should I keep the [MAS] K factors for NuTeV or are these replaced by PineAPPL grids that include the infamous Jun Gao computation?

@felixhekhorn @alecandido ?

You should keep, unfortunately. This has been the bottleneck to yadism publication for some time, and it's still there. For the time being we are (or I am) lacking resources to work on this project, that is a bit more demanding than expected (if you wish I can provide further details at some meeting)

[alecandido]

Are there any PineAPPL grids in theory 400 that are accurate to NNLO

To the best of my knowledge, the answer is "all and only DIS grids".
Since yadism is now producing PineAPPL grids, that's technically correct, but I guess you were aware of DIS, and interested in everything else.

[enocera]

Are there any PineAPPL grids in theory 400 that are accurate to NNLO

To the best of my knowledge, the answer is "all and only DIS grids". Since yadism is now producing PineAPPL grids, that's technically correct, but I guess you were aware of DIS, and interested in everything else.

Of course, my bad, the question was not formulated correctly: in my mind I wanted to ask "Are there any PineAPPL grids in theory 400 that are accurate to NNLO, EXCEPT DIS grids?"

[enocera]

Should I keep the [MAS] K factors for NuTeV or are these replaced by PineAPPL grids that include the infamous Jun Gao computation?

@felixhekhorn @alecandido ?

You should keep, unfortunately. This has been the bottleneck to yadism publication for some time, and it's still there. For the time being we are (or I am) lacking resources to work on this project, that is a bit more demanding than expected (if you wish I can provide further details at some meeting)

OK, no problem, good to know.

[enocera]

Theory 400 is now updated with the K factors. I've also corrected the DYE886P.yaml file. As a check that everything works as it should, here's a comparison between the exp chi2 computed with theories 200 and 400 with NNPDF40_nnlo_as_01180
https://vp.nnpdf.science/1Ztq4PJYSzOZOxp1EHA4NA==
The difference in total chi2 is 0.03 (mostly driven by DIS, I'd say), which is slightly more than 1sigma in units of chi2 for 4618 data points. I'm looking forward to see whether this difference can be reduced once the data set is refitted with theory 400.

[scarlehoff]

Great, thanks! I'll try to send the fit today.

[scarlehoff]

Fit finished, this is the comparison. The quality of the fit is still worse... https://vp.nnpdf.science/K0hKnnd-T2qzGp5S-sHnaw==/

I am not happy with this dataset in particular https://vp.nnpdf.science/K0hKnnd-T2qzGp5S-sHnaw==/matched_datasets_from_dataspecs74_dataset_report_report.html#matched_datasets_from_dataspecs74_dataset_report_Datanorm_plot_fancy_dataspecs_0

This is the one that had the wrong factor for the first set of bins, which we fixed https://github.com/NNPDF/fktables/issues/5 /cc @cschwan @felixhekhorn @alecandido

I'm wondering whether that wrong factor propagated to the commondata or the kfactor?

[enocera]

I'm wondering whether that wrong factor propagated to the commondata or the kfactor?

I don't think that the K-factor can be the culprit: even if there were a factor wrong, it'd be the same in the numerator and in the denominator of the K-factor, therefore it will cancel out.

The commondata seems OK to me.

[scarlehoff]

Maybe we overcompensated in the new fktables then? but I am surprised that the previous (wrong one) was so close to the data if the effect was that big…

[enocera]

Is theory 414 the NLO version of theory 400? I'm asking because I'd like to look at the difference between the NLO and NNLO description of the data set. The old and new K-factors vary by 1.5% for certain bins, so I'd like to see whether most of the discrepancy we now see between data and theory comes from the NLO theory or from the NNLO K-factor.