This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision | Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
2015:groups:higgs:dmhiggs:monoh [2016/01/19 00:37] jory.sonneveld [Information/HowTo] |
2015:groups:higgs:dmhiggs:monoh [2016/01/21 22:21] nicola.de_filippis |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 323: | Line 323: | ||
**Final remarks** | **Final remarks** | ||
Ideally, every analysis chain comprises two independent modules: event by event, the first module takes as input the nominal (experiment or framework-dependent) objects and a particular point in the space of systematic parameters and outputs the re-calibrated framework-independent objects, ideally, as vectors of ''TParticle'' objects, while the second module takes as input the re-calibrated ''TParticle'' objects and outputs histograms and, or, flat ntuples. The second module should have no knowledge of the provenance of the ''TParticle'' objects. If we wrote our analysis codes this way, they would become framework-independent reusable modules. But, I've just realized I have been dreaming! | Ideally, every analysis chain comprises two independent modules: event by event, the first module takes as input the nominal (experiment or framework-dependent) objects and a particular point in the space of systematic parameters and outputs the re-calibrated framework-independent objects, ideally, as vectors of ''TParticle'' objects, while the second module takes as input the re-calibrated ''TParticle'' objects and outputs histograms and, or, flat ntuples. The second module should have no knowledge of the provenance of the ''TParticle'' objects. If we wrote our analysis codes this way, they would become framework-independent reusable modules. But, I've just realized I have been dreaming! | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====== Proceedings ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | We started to work on the proceeding. The deadline is end of February. You can find the last version at link: | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{:2015:groups:higgs:dmhiggs:proceeding.zip|}} | ||