Again, @agreste was faster! 👏🏻 I was a bit tired yesterday from work and classes (I enrolled this semester haha 😅) that I had to delay the writing for a day. I am not sure if I got the values for the error bars correctly, I manually recorded the error from the log of the terminal during the scan. I checked @agreste's for comparison and I noticed that the values I got are really small or is it expected?
However, we must be careful that predictions in the article correspond to next-to-leading order ones (NLO), which is precisely what we will do in the next episode, and compare them to the leading order ones (LO) that we dealt with this week.
I almost forgot about it!
In the figure, only scale uncertainties are accounted for.
This confused me a little, is this figure the table I got from your paper?
I noticed this. I have open both posts in my browser, and I will review them while in the train to Amsterdam tomorrow (or maybe tonight although there is little chance, as I don't have much time). I will check out what you did for the error bars and comment on this.
Normally, you should get errors that vary depending on the heavy neutrino mass, and in the ball park of 10%. Much smaller errors are expected when moving to NLO, as we will see in the next episode.
The numbers in the table can be extracted from the figure (in fact we did the opposite: we started from a much bigger table and made the figure).