Another technical comparison is for sure doable, but we should discuss if this would be helpful (maybe in the EW session on Tuesday morning). In last year's proceedings, the plan was that each group would try to reproduce the results of the respective other groups (Recola, OpenLops, MG5_aMC@NLO), but finally essentially only Munich/Sherpa+OpenLoops provided anything beyond what was already available from their papers… Probably no purely technical comparison between codes (maybe as a by-product of other studies).
contributors: Stefan Kallweit, Hua-Sheng Shao, Mathieu Pellen, Christian Reuschle, Nicolas Greiner
In most cases, there is probably not only one solution. However, it could be useful to go through these (and further) points in the proceedings and agree on suggestions on how to deal with the different issues.
contributors: Stefan Kallweit, Marek Schoenherr, Mathieu Pellen, Christian Reuschle, Nicolas Greiner
Rather than a bare theoretical comparison of different tools we could investigate the impact of “democratic clustering” against other possible prescriptions, e.g. on some sample process like di-jet, W(→lnu))+jet (or even W(→lnu)+2jets).
contributors: Stefan Kallweit, Marek Schoenherr, Christian Reuschle, Nicolas Greiner
Comparison of different pseudo-resonance treatments in case no complex-mass scheme is applied because of external vector-boson treatment as stable: W+2jets (stable W boson) should used as a case study. (The motivation is that processes of interest might be too complicated to be calculated with full decays at some point, and W+2jets might be one of the simplest processes where the problem can be investigated.)
contributors: Stefan Kallweit, Christian Reuschle