2019:groups:tools:mcvariation2
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Last revision Both sides next revision | ||
|
2019:groups:tools:mcvariation2 [2019/06/16 17:14] emanuele.re |
2019:groups:tools:mcvariation2 [2019/06/18 15:58] helen.brooks |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| * consider 1 case study, pick a selection of 2-3 observables, perform a selection of MC variations | * consider 1 case study, pick a selection of 2-3 observables, perform a selection of MC variations | ||
| * for a given setup X=(FO/matching/merging accuracy, PS model, NP model), produce envelope | * for a given setup X=(FO/matching/merging accuracy, PS model, NP model), produce envelope | ||
| - | * check if the envelope from setup X behaves as expected or not: for instance, it might happen that even in a region that should be dominated by "hard physics", one has a residual dependence upon the NP model, or a too-large dependence upon some shower setting, if the variations are not done properly. | + | * check if the envelope from setup X behaves as expected or not: for instance, it might happen that even in a region that should be dominated by "hard physics", one has a residual dependence upon the NP model, or a too-large dependence upon some shower parameter, if the variations are not done properly, or if there's an inconsistency. |
| * check if envelopes from setup X_i and setup X_j overlap at least partially. If there are very large differences, is this expected (given the kinematic region probed and the perturbative/non-perturbative content of the setups)? | * check if envelopes from setup X_i and setup X_j overlap at least partially. If there are very large differences, is this expected (given the kinematic region probed and the perturbative/non-perturbative content of the setups)? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ** Disclaimer ** | ||
| + | |||
| + | * to some extent, such a study could be considered a continuation of what can be found in chapter V.1 of https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04692 . Nowadays we might aim for having higher accuracy in the ME part, and possibly more developed and more efficient frameworks for "PS-reweighting". | ||
| + | |||
| ** Possible test cases: ** | ** Possible test cases: ** | ||
| Line 12: | Line 17: | ||
| * pth in gluon-fusion (pros: directly related to STXS bins) | * pth in gluon-fusion (pros: directly related to STXS bins) | ||
| * Drell-Yan (pros: there's data available) | * Drell-Yan (pros: there's data available) | ||
| - | * ttbar (pros: atlas and cms have already several studies performed with identical or very similar settings) | + | * ttbar (pros: atlas and cms have already several studies performed with identical or very similar setups) |
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ** Meeting on Monday ** | ||
| + | |||
| + | * agree first on the utility/need (from the EXP side) of such a study, and then on the best test case | ||
| + | * ->Check | ||
| + | |||
| + | ** Decisions ** | ||
| + | * Agreement reached points towards ttbar as first choice. Probably as a second choice: gg->H | ||
| - | ** Next steps (meeting on Monday) ** | ||
| - | * agree on a test case | + | ** Next steps ** |
| + | * Work out a strategy (slack?) | ||
| - | ** Interested participants: ** | + | ** Interested participants (please add your name): ** |
| + | |||
| + | * ttbar | ||
| + | * Emanuele Re | ||
| + | * Helen Brooks (can provide Vincia+POWHEG, maybe Pythia) | ||
| + | ** ========= ** | ||
| + | * Carlo Pandini | ||
| + | * Simone Amoroso | ||
| + | * Helen Brooks | ||
| + | * Josh McFayden | ||
| + | * Philippe Gras | ||
2019/groups/tools/mcvariation2.txt · Last modified: 2019/06/25 17:12 by adil.jueid
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: Public Domain
