2017:working_groups:incljets
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
2017:working_groups:incljets [2017/06/10 15:27] joey.huston |
2017:working_groups:incljets [2017/11/14 11:54] (current) johannes.bellm [Fixed-Order vs ME+PS for inclusive jets] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Fixed-Order vs ME+PS for inclusive jets ====== | ====== Fixed-Order vs ME+PS for inclusive jets ====== | ||
| - | People: Kostas Theofilatos,Joey Huston ... (**add your name** if you are interested) | + | People: Kostas Theofilatos, Joey Huston, Silvan Kuttimalai, Suman Chatterjee, Simone Alioli, Emanuele Re (I can't guarantee, but I'll try), Valentin Hirschi, Joao Pires, Efe Yazgan (for NP effects), Andy Buckley , Johannes Bellm... (**add your name** if you are interested) |
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| The study will be undertaken with both fixed order (NLO and NNLO) and ME+PS programs. Results will be quoted both at the parton (parton shower) level and at the hadron level (for ME+PS). The same PDF will be used, and the same core scale (as much as possible) will also be used. A Rivet routine will be provided based on CMS measurements at 13 TeV for R=0.4 and 0.7. It will be supplemented with jet sizes of 0.3, 0.6, and 1.0. | The study will be undertaken with both fixed order (NLO and NNLO) and ME+PS programs. Results will be quoted both at the parton (parton shower) level and at the hadron level (for ME+PS). The same PDF will be used, and the same core scale (as much as possible) will also be used. A Rivet routine will be provided based on CMS measurements at 13 TeV for R=0.4 and 0.7. It will be supplemented with jet sizes of 0.3, 0.6, and 1.0. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Note that this will also lead to an effective prediction of the jet shape at the various orders. | ||
| ===== Addendum 1 ===== | ===== Addendum 1 ===== | ||
| Line 30: | Line 32: | ||
| ===== Addendum 2 ===== | ===== Addendum 2 ===== | ||
| - | This study can also be used as a testbed for the impact of scale choices on the inclusive jet cross section calculation. In the inclusive cross section, both in data and in theory, each jet contributes to its respective pT and y bin in the histograms. For fixed order calculations, it has been traditional for the matrix element to be evaluated with the scale of the jet pT being considered, i.e. pTjet. If there are 4 jets in the event (for a NNLO calculation), then there are 4 entries corresponding to each event, with each entry being calculated with a different scale. An alternative is to use as a scale for all entries the maximum jet pT in the event (pTmax). As an add-on to this study, we would like to calculate the: | + | This study can also be used as a testbed for the impact of scale choices on the inclusive jet cross section calculation. In the inclusive cross section, both in data and in theory, each jet contributes to its respective pT and y bin in the histograms. For fixed order calculations, it has been traditional for the matrix element to be evaluated with the scale of the jet pT being considered, i.e. pTjet. If there are 4 jets in the event (for a NNLO calculation), then there are 4 entries corresponding to each event, with each entry being calculated with a different scale. An alternative is to use as a scale for all entries the maximum jet pT in the event (pTmax), and/or a global scale of HT/2 (where HT is the sum of the jet pT's). As an add-on to this study, we would like to calculate the: |
| -leading jet pT cross section | -leading jet pT cross section | ||
| Line 41: | Line 43: | ||
| using either the individual jet pT values, or the maximum pT of any jet in the event. It is easier to adjust the core scale in ME+PS programs than the scale for the 3rd and 4th jet, so an exact correspondence to the fixed order test may not be possible, but we can try to be as close as possible. There is a matching coffee bet from Daniel Maitre on the resulting comparisons. | using either the individual jet pT values, or the maximum pT of any jet in the event. It is easier to adjust the core scale in ME+PS programs than the scale for the 3rd and 4th jet, so an exact correspondence to the fixed order test may not be possible, but we can try to be as close as possible. There is a matching coffee bet from Daniel Maitre on the resulting comparisons. | ||
| + | |||
| + | These comparisons should be done inclusively and exclusively. For the exclusive study, it would be, for example, the 3rd leading jet for events in which there are exactly 3 jets, etc. | ||
| ===== Addendum 3 ===== | ===== Addendum 3 ===== | ||
| This study also serves as a good testbed for non-perturbative corrections for inclusive jet cross sections, as a function of R, since the ME+PS calculations will be carried out for both parton shower level and full hadron level. As the non-perturbative corrections seem to differ between CMS and ATLAS, the results may serve as a useful benchmarks. | This study also serves as a good testbed for non-perturbative corrections for inclusive jet cross sections, as a function of R, since the ME+PS calculations will be carried out for both parton shower level and full hadron level. As the non-perturbative corrections seem to differ between CMS and ATLAS, the results may serve as a useful benchmarks. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Files ====== | ||
| + | * Slides from the discussion session at Les Houches {{:2017:working_groups:sm:lh2017_jets.pdf}} | ||
| + | * CMS rivet routine (SMP-15-007) {{:2017:working_groups:cms_2016_i1459051.tar}} ; extra R values, distributions will be added | ||
2017/working_groups/incljets.1497101228.txt.gz ยท Last modified: 2017/06/10 15:27 by joey.huston
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: Public Domain
