A How reliable are MC simulations when it comes to jets?

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter ChrisVer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Jets Simulations
ChrisVer
Science Advisor
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
465
I have been reading in papers here and there, that di/multi-jet MC generated or even other process that have one or more associated jets are used for tag-and-probing or for training several BDTs and so on. Some experiticians (theoreticians who produce experiments) are also relying on how well MCs are simulating the jets.

However I have the impression (through what I've done) that MCs are not so reliable in modelling the fragmentation or in general lepton misidentification. For that reason it's almost always the case in analyses to try and estimate those 'jets' via data-driven methods and by defining several control regions to do so.

How is that affecting people who rely a lot on jets? Or even more, people who study jet calibrations and so on as in:
https://cds.cern.ch/record/2037613/files/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2015-015.pdf
which initiated my question since they seem to take MC jets for their analysis
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you specify what you mean by MC?

Do you mean a full simulation of events including pileup, detector response etc.? Or do you mean just a full pp event with a hard process, Parton shower and hadronisation?

There might always be some minimal dependence on the input MC on the evaluation of the jet energy scale etc. But such dependence should be accounted for in the systematic uncertainties.
 
I guess I was referring to the whole simulation... but I think even the parton showers are not very reliable.
 
ChrisVer said:
which initiated my question since they seem to take MC jets for their analysis
You can rarely work completely without MC, but in general it is avoided as much as possible, and where it is used it often leads to large systematic uncertainties.
 

Thread 'Toponium Discovered'

Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
View full post »

Thread 'Dirac-Delta from Normalization of Continuous Eigenfunctions'

I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
View full post »

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top