Tools and Monte Carlo Session 2 (BSM)

From Wiki Les Houches 09

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Detector simulation (with Session 1))
(Detector simulation (with Session 1))
Line 46: Line 46:
   
   
* Comparison/Validation against internal detector simulations
* Comparison/Validation against internal detector simulations
-
** ATLAS (Atflast)
+
** ATLAS (Atflast) http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/atlas/atlfast/
** CMS (?)
** CMS (?)
** Tevatron, HERA, LEP...?
** Tevatron, HERA, LEP...?

Revision as of 13:57, 5 June 2009

Conveners present: Filip Moortgat (Exp), Peter Richardson (Th), Steffen Schumann (Th)
(Click here for Tools and Monte Carlo Session 1 (SM))

Contents

Existing Codes and Implementations

  • Are all interesting models currently implemented?
    • non-minimal models like hidden valley or quirks?
    • need for modified shower or fragmentation models?
  • Update the Durham / Les Houches BSM Tools repository: Les Houches BSM Tools Repository

Framework for new model implementations

  • Status of QNUMBERS approach: arXiv:0712.3311
  • Implementation of arbitrary models as an evolution of the BSM-LHEF
    • Feynman rule packages: LanHEP, FeynRules
    • spectrum calculators
    • (matrix element) generator interfaces
    • interfaces to parton showers and hadronisation models
    • generator validation strategies
  • incorporation into validated generator versions used by experiments

SM for BSM (with Session 1)

  • Automated ME+PS matching for BSM processes
  • Boosted hadronic decays of BSM particles and decay products
  • BSM applications of New Jet Algorithms
  • Impact of MC tuning / uncertainty evaluations, on New Physics searches and measurements?

Detector simulation (with Session 1)

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 physics requirements
    • Acceptance, resolution, trigger and reconstruction efficiency
    • Granularity
    • Magnetic field
  • Review of Software Requirements (integration into tool chain)
    • Standardized input from generators (HepMC?)
    • Standardized output to Rivet and/or user code (TBD?)

Flavour Les Houches Accord

  • With Tools WG of Flavor/LHC workshops. Model independent parametrization of flavor related quantities such as Wilson coefficients, exp. results, etc. Modify existing SLHA "structure" to host this accord? S. Heinemeyer, N. Mahmoudi.

Common non-susy BSM scenario and benchmark points

  • Define & generate some benchmark common data sets?
  • Discussion (accord?) on how experiments and theory might best interact on new model testing

Training

  • Possible training sessions on how to go from a model to event generation with new tools
    • Feynman rules: FeynRules, LanHep
    • spectrum calculators
    • MC generators: Herwig, Pythia, Sherpa, Whizard, MadGraph ...
    • detector simulation: Delphes

Personal tools