This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
2019:groups:tools:mcvariation2 [2019/06/16 17:24] emanuele.re |
2019:groups:tools:mcvariation2 [2019/06/25 17:12] (current) adil.jueid |
||
---|---|---|---|
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)? | ||
Line 17: | 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) |
- | ** Next steps (meeting on Monday) ** | + | ** Meeting on Monday ** |
- | * agree on a test case | + | * agree first on the utility/need (from the EXP side) of such a study, and then on the best test case |
+ | * ->Check | ||
+ | ** Decisions ** | ||
- | ** Interested participants: ** | + | * Agreement reached points towards ttbar as first choice. Probably as a second choice: gg->H |
+ | |||
+ | ** Next steps ** | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Work out a strategy (slack?) | ||
+ | |||
+ | ** 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 | ||
+ | * Adil Jueid |