---
# System prepended metadata

title: Notes on RNNIP fc value

---

# Notes on RNNIP fc value

Which fc value should be used for the RNNIP discriminant?
A) fc = 0.018 -> same as DL1r
B) fc = 0.07 -> used in studies before DL1r fc value was determined

**if no-one has a strong preference I'd suggest to use the DL1r value**


## Comparison Plots
Reference = black: fc = 0.018
Test = blue: fc = 0.07

- dicriminant
![](https://i.imgur.com/7rq9v4i.png =220x) ![](https://i.imgur.com/QqaSl3j.png =220x) ![](https://i.imgur.com/aOnwMv7.png =220x)

- ROC curve
![](https://i.imgur.com/lRLc1dN.png =300x)

- Nicole also had a plot comparing the discriminant (and could make it quickly for the same range and in logscale :grinning: ) -> distributions look consistent :+1: 
![](https://i.imgur.com/zML6kSL.png =230x) ![](https://i.imgur.com/7rq9v4i.png =230x)
- (and in non-logscale)
![](https://i.imgur.com/nDIhLO6.png =230x)

- efficiency vs Lxy and vs pT plots from the Physval code are here (10k statistics): https://juhofer.web.cern.ch/juhofer/PHYSVAL/ROC_RNNIP_fc_comparisons/

## WP values (sent by Nicole, just for reference)
![](https://i.imgur.com/3LCE8f7.png)
