Fix xsec conflicts

[anpicci]

This PR is intended to fix the conflicts between xsecs reported in the corresponding yaml.

FYI @bryates @kmohrman

[bryates]

Thanks @anpicci. This only covers wrong xsecs, not any of the duplicates that were spotted recently?

[anpicci]

The conflicts should be solved, but some need additional discussion.

• ttHtonobb samples: the ttHnobb-1Jets is the corresponding Run3 sample for what was used for Run2, but the powheg one seems recommended for Run3. Which one to use?
• WZ to 3lnu

  WZto3LNu_13p6TeV                   : 5.31    (ewkcoffea)
  WZTo3LNu_13p6TeV                   : 5.31    (topeft)

  

  “to” is more adherent to the name of the central samples, so we (topeft) should rename our jsons accordingly if we adopt the “to” convention in place of “To”
• ZZTo4L
  • same as above
  • in addition, @kmohrman are you using the k-factors?
• ggToZZ samples

  GluGluToContinto2Zto2E2Mu_13p6TeV      : 0.0061150

  GluGluToContinto2Zto2E2Tau_13p6TeV     : 0.0061150
  GluGluToContinto2Zto2Mu2Tau_13p6TeV    : 0.0061150

  GluGlutoContinto2Zto4Mu_13p6TeV        : 0.003
  GluGlutoContinto2Zto4E_13p6TeV         : 0.003

  GluGlutoContinto2Zto4Tau_13p6TeV       : 0.003

  

  
corresponds to

  


ggToZZTo2e2mu_13p6TeV           : 0.006115              #SMP-24-005
  



ggToZZTo2e2tau_13p6TeV          : 0.006115              #SMP-24-005
  




ggToZZTo2mu2tau_13p6TeV         : 0.006115              #SMP-24-005
  





ggToZZTo4e_13p6TeV              : 0.003                 #SMP-24-005

  





ggToZZTo4mu_13p6TeV             : 0.003                 #SMP-24-005

  





ggToZZTo4tau_13p6TeV            : 0.003                 #SMP-24-005

  

  so, same reasoning as before
.
  






About

  ggToZZTo2e2nu_13p6TeV           :  0.006115                     #TO BE ADDED WHEN AVAILABLE
  ggToZZTo2mu2nu_13p6TeV          : 0.006115                 #TO BE ADDED WHEN AVAILABLE
  

  Are you using k-factor here as well @kmohrman?
  


[anpicci]

@bryates it fixes the duplicates as well, apart from what was reported above (and what I could have missed)

[bryates]

@bryates it fixes the duplicates as well, apart from what was reported above (and what I could have missed)

Ok thanks, I missed that other message the first time.

[kmohrman]

Thanks very much @anpicci for these updates!

To respond to some of your comments above:

ttHtonobb samples: the ttHnobb-1Jets is the corresponding Run3 sample for what was used for Run2, but the powheg one seems recommended for Run3. Which one to use?

If both samples are available, and if they have slightly different cross sections, I guess it would be ok to include both? But I think the naming and/or comments should make it explicitly clear which is which. And I think if you could add a comment with a link wherever it says the powheg one is recommended that would be great.

ZZTo4L 13p6TeV samples

Yes, for these I believe we use the K factors as written in the comment (the k factors are already applied to these numbers, I think), but @MatthewDittrich can confirm.

[MatthewDittrich]

Yes, for these I believe we use the K factors as written in the comment (the k factors are already applied to these numbers, I think), but @MatthewDittrich can confirm.

Actually, I believe there is no k-factor applied here. The value with the k-factor applied is:
ZZTo4LK_13p6TeV

Also for the GluGlu samples, there will be an added K in the name when the value has a K-factor applied. Such as:
GluGluToContinto2Zto2Mu2TauK_13p6TeV

ggToZZTo2mu2nu_13p6TeV
Are you using k-factor here as well @kmohrman?

We are not. I think these samples are not used in ewkcoffea as of now.

[MatthewDittrich]

“to” is more adherent to the name of the central samples, so we (topeft) should rename our jsons accordingly if we adopt the “to” convention in place of “To”

@anpicci I am wondering if the "to"/"To" issue has been addressed? If so, what was decided?

[bryates]

“to” is more adherent to the name of the central samples, so we (topeft) should rename our jsons accordingly if we adopt the “to” convention in place of “To”

@anpicci I am wondering if the "to"/"To" issue has been addressed? If so, what was decided?

What's the official CMS naming scheme? Maybe we should just adhere to that.

[MatthewDittrich]

“to” is more adherent to the name of the central samples, so we (topeft) should rename our jsons accordingly if we adopt the “to” convention in place of “To”

@anpicci I am wondering if the "to"/"To" issue has been addressed? If so, what was decided?

What's the official CMS naming scheme? Maybe we should just adhere to that.

"to" seems to be more adherent to the official sample names (although there are samples with "To" as well, so it is not 100% consistent within CMS it seems)

[bryates]

“to” is more adherent to the name of the central samples, so we (topeft) should rename our jsons accordingly if we adopt the “to” convention in place of “To”

@anpicci I am wondering if the "to"/"To" issue has been addressed? If so, what was decided?

What's the official CMS naming scheme? Maybe we should just adhere to that.

"to" seems to be more adherent to the official sample names (although there are samples with "To" as well, so it is not 100% consistent within CMS it seems)

Ok, maybe we should just match whatever the process name is. What do you think @kmohrman @anpicci?

[anpicci]

@bryates I agree sticking with the CMS naming convention is better. However, it looks like it has changed between Run2 and Run3, so we might want to take whatever the CMS central sample name is, and adopt it here, without assuming it is always "to" or always "To".

[bryates]

@bryates I agree sticking with the CMS naming convention is better. However, it looks like it has changed between Run2 and Run3, so we might want to take whatever the CMS central sample name is, and adopt it here, without assuming it is always "to" or always "To".

Yes, the convention has changed. I was hoping we could stick to the newer one (used for Run 3), but I agree we can just stick to whatever the sample name is.

[MatthewDittrich]

@anpicci I was just wondering about the status of this PR?