This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
2017:groups:tools:resonance_aware [2017/06/11 11:26] emanuele.re |
2017:groups:tools:resonance_aware [2017/06/12 19:27] emanuele.re |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===== Resonance-aware NLO+PS sub working group ===== | ===== Resonance-aware NLO+PS sub working group ===== | ||
- | * A discussion is scheduled for Monday morning. | + | ** interested people:** Emanuele, Luca, Ben, Efe, Tomas Jezo, Markus Seidel, Alexander Grohsjean, Ludovic Scyboz, Philippe G., ADD YOUR NAME HERE |
- | * possible topics: | + | A discussion is scheduled for Monday morning. |
+ | |||
+ | The more recent results from the ongoing (TH) study using the powheg-box-res framework (developed in | ||
+ | https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.09071 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.04538) can be found here (P. Nason talk) | ||
+ | https://indico.cern.ch/event/596233/timetable/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Possible topics for LH: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * experimental needs | ||
* availability of benchmarks results | * availability of benchmarks results | ||
- | * dedicated interfaces for NLOPS matching (availability, missing/desired features). | + | * dedicated interfaces for NLOPS matching (availability, missing/desired features). We had a discussion on LHE v3 on Saturday, which has also to do with this point... |
- | We had a discussion on LHE v3 on Saturday, which has also to do with this point... | + | |
* uncertainties | * uncertainties | ||
- | * comparison powheg vs mc@nlo | + | * comparison powheg vs mc@nlo (any news from herwig, or sherpa?) |
+ | |||
+ | ------------ | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Discussion on Monday:** | ||
+ | |||
+ | technicalities (bb4l generator): | ||
+ | |||
+ | * make sure that numerical accuracy reached in event generation from MC is the same as in TH-paper | ||
+ | |||
+ | * possible to have grids from the authors (seems to be a viable solution, as atlas and cms will agree - or already agreed - on the settings) | ||
+ | |||
+ | * if grids will be provided, need to agree on parameters to scan upon. It seems that order 20 runs will be enough (a scan would mostly be done using 5-10 values for mtop, and 2-3 values for hdamp) | ||
+ | |||
+ | * It might even be possible to use the powheg reweighting machinery to avoid having to re-run all the grids. This might depend on how far mtop is moved from the central value. T. Jezo and collaborators have tried this. Perhaps it'd be useful to perform a closure-test, but using the outermost mtop values that atlas/cms would use. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * this reweighting would be missing mtop dependence in R/B. There exists an experimental facility in powheg, to capture these effects via a reweighting, but it was implemented only for DY, and rarely used. Not clear it would work here. | ||
+ | |||
+ | [ER: to be continued] | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ |