User Tools

Site Tools


2019:topics

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
2019:topics [2018/12/07 19:48]
gustaaf.brooijmans
2019:topics [2019/04/22 15:55]
joey.huston
Line 1: Line 1:
-====== ​ Topics for Consideration ======+======  ​LH 2019: Topics for Consideration ======
 //(Editing this page requires special privileges: Conveners, organisers)//​ //(Editing this page requires special privileges: Conveners, organisers)//​
  
Line 12: Line 12:
        *does each group have the same reaction to the tensions? ​        *does each group have the same reaction to the tensions? ​
        *how to get the greatest knowledge from distributions with tensions? ​        *how to get the greatest knowledge from distributions with tensions? ​
 +    *electroweak effects in PDF fits
     *dealing with NNLO grids (NNLOJET)     *dealing with NNLO grids (NNLOJET)
  
Line 55: Line 56:
  
   * **MC and Tools**   * **MC and Tools**
-    * ttbar: mismodeling of top pt and an angular ​distributions +    * ttbar: mismodeling of top pt and spin correlations. There are tensions between ATLAS and CMS in top distributions. Other variables to look at? Dedicated study performed by MC authors, comprehensive of main uncertainties. 
-    * W-mass and precise EW measurements:​ where are the bottlenecks?​ +    * W-mass and precise EW measurements:​ where are the bottlenecks? Is the specific ATLAS W-mass tune working well for all observables (y_Z)
-    * ...more to come...+    * Vector Bosons scattering: follow up from LH17Continue “benchmarking” study at NLO, to expose differences due to different approximations made in the NLO computationNLO+PS: check distributions and make sure all EXP are aware of differences among different generators and showers. 
 +    * EW effects in PS. It's known that they are important for HE. Collect/​study examples where these effects are relevant, produce some representative plots. LH proceeding can become a reference, as well as a place where the “TH challenge” is stated. 
 +    * High performance computing: can we use LH as a platform to initiate some study on performances,​ negative weights, etc. What are the needs for high-energy pp machines and more in general ​to future colliders? How should we define a metric? 
 +    * Legacy data: what’s the best format, how to make sure TH can easily access it, and even just find the important information for their needs (e.gfor PDF fitters and constraints on EFT). Is HEPDATA enough? Can we use it more efficiently?​ 
 +    * Z+1 jet: distorsion of Z rapidity / PS mapping for radiation.
  
 **session 2** **session 2**
Line 70: Line 75:
     * Interpretation of SM coupling/​STXS constraints in BSM benchmarks     * Interpretation of SM coupling/​STXS constraints in BSM benchmarks
     * MSSM: how to close the gap in the high mA (>= 500 GeV), intermediate tan(beta) range?     * MSSM: how to close the gap in the high mA (>= 500 GeV), intermediate tan(beta) range?
 +    * Precision measurements to sharpen interpretation of Higgs results (W mass, TGCs, W/Z coupling to quarks, CKM ...)
 +    * New physics at the high-energy tail of Higgs distributions
 +
 +  * **Precision physics at the LHC**
 +    * Precision measurements of Z and W couplings to quarks
 +    * Lepton flavor violation in W decays ​  
 +    * Measurement of CKM elements
 +    * High-energy tail of Drell-Yan production
  
   * **New Physics**   * **New Physics**
Line 75: Line 88:
     * Unconventional signatures     * Unconventional signatures
     * Complex DM and colliders     * Complex DM and colliders
 +
 +  * **Flavour anomalies**
 +    * High pT searches connected with the flavour anomalies
 +    * Optimized leptoquark and Z' searches ​
 +    * Tail of the di-leptons distributions ​
     * ...     * ...
  
2019/topics.txt · Last modified: 2019/04/22 15:55 by joey.huston