Fast Detector Simulation Specification and Usage
From Wiki Les Houches 09
Jmb (Talk | contribs)
(New page: While in general it is to hoped that experiments will correct for detector effects, producing particle-level measurements valid within some systematic uncertainty, this is not always the c...)
Next diff →
Revision as of 14:33, 13 June 2009
While in general it is to hoped that experiments will correct for detector effects, producing particle-level measurements valid within some systematic uncertainty, this is not always the case. Some key measurements only exist in uncorrected form, and a detector smearing or acceptance needs to be applied to theoretical/MC results before they can be compared to the data. Also, in some phenomenological evaluations of possible new measurements, it is desirable to have a rough simulation to estimate their robustness against detector effect.
We propose to evaluate tools in this area, and examine the requirements they might need to meet. A key issue is likely to be a standard output format for "reconstructed" objects such as jets, missing transverse energy etc.
- Review of publicly available tools
- Review of physics requirements
- Acceptance, resolution, trigger and reconstruction efficiency
- Granularity
- Magnetic field
- B-tagging
- Review of Software Requirements (integration into tool chain)
- Standardized input from generators (HepMC? At what level? Final state particles?)
- Standardized output to Rivet and/or user code (TBD?)
We should define use cases, when is it a good idea for theorists to worry about detector simulation etc. Interested people (session 1) Simon Dean, Jon Butterworth, Peter Loch, Fabio Maltoni, Matthew Schwartz, Steve Mrenna, Andy Buckley.
- Project: Comparison/Validation against internal detector simulations
- ATLAS (Atflast) http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/atlas/atlfast/
- CMS (?)
- Tevatron, HERA, LEP...?
- Default LHC detector parametrisations?