Difference: LHCHXSWGVH (1 vs. 2)

Revision 22019-06-23 - CarloEnricoPandini

Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="LHCHXSWG"

Working group for VH calculations

Added:
>
>
 Role of subgroup: conduit for theorists to get information to experiments (and vice-versa).
Added:
>
>
A road-map (to be updated) of the HXSWG-VH activities within the Higgs Cross Section WG1 can be found here
 

General information

Line: 10 to 13
 
Changed:
<
<

Topics of interest

Combination of NNLO QCD and NLO EW corrections in parton showers.

  • Short-term proposal: use POWHEG_MiNLO and reweight using YR4 EW correction factors either in the cross-section or differentially in VpT.
  • Longer-term: investigate/encourage authors to collaborate on joint implementation in POWHEG, as has already been done for (simpler) W/Z production.
>
>

Guidelines for state-of-the-art VH MC+PS predictions for experimental collaborations

  • currently in use: Drell-Yan VH production, QCD@MiNLO, PowhegMiNLO +Pythia8; loop-induced ggZH production, QCD@LO, Powheg+Pythia8 [Higgs decay treated by Pythia8 parton-shower]
    MC+PS prediction 1-D reweighting to EW@NLO as f(pTV) from HAWK VH calculation
  • higher-order in QCD: NNLOPS reweighting for Drell-Yan VH production, Hbb@NLO decay implemented in Powheg
  • higher-order in EW: Powheg QCD+EW@MiNLO accuracy
  • loop-induced ggZH: available tools for ggZH+1jet@LO (multi-leg setup), see below
Note: Powheg QCD+EW@MiNLO not easily reweight-able to NNLOPS accuracy. Two options: 1) NNLOPS prediction with ad-hoc reweighting to EW@NLO calculation, 2) Powheg QCD+EW@MiNLO without NNLOPS reweighting
Goal: investigate the effect of each possible improvement over the currently used setup, and provide general guidelines for experimental collaboration on which tools to use and how to combine them.
Deliverables: guidelines for experiments
 
Changed:
<
<

How can predictions for gg—>VH contribution be improved?

>
>

Loop-induced gg->ZH

Cross-section theory predictions - possible improvements

 
  • try to improve approximation (tension between effectiveness of HEFT and boosted region where gg contribution is large);
Changed:
<
<
  • can we exploit similarities with (very similar) gg—>HH process of G. Heinrich et al;
>
>
  • can we exploit similarities with (very similar) gg—>HH process of G. Heinrich et al;
 
  • is there any mileage in a direct appeal to the Goldstone equivalence theorem (perhaps applies well enough in boosted region)?
Added:
>
>

MC+PS predictions - possible short-term improvements

Goal: investigate differences in modeling for the main gg->ZH variables when using 0+1jet@LO multi-leg setup, and improvement in QCD perturbative uncertainties across the typical VH phase space
Deliverables: possibly public note from HXSWG, guidelines for experiments
 
Changed:
<
<

Benchmark existing calculations of gg —> VH

  • Should benchmark existing calculations of gg —> VH, which may contain different treatments and approximations, both with and without matching/merging.

Discuss backgrounds

>
>

Background discussion: Vector boson in association with heavy flavors production

 
  • Desire within experiments for more guidance/sharing of experience with background generation and benchmarking in boosted region.
  • General agreement that, while not the focus of this subgroup, we should help to facilitate such discussions.
Added:
>
>
  • Host discussion / overview ATLAS vs CMS V+hf background comparison in the context of VH(bb) analysis
 
Changed:
<
<

VH theoretical uncertainties under simplified template cross-section approach (STXS)

>
>

VH theoretical uncertainties under simplified template cross-section approach (STXS)

QCD perturbative uncertainties

 
  • How should the calculation of uncertainties for VH be handled under simplified template cross-section approach (STXS), c.f. YR4.
  • In particular, correlated uncertainties between jet bins — either using Stewart/Tackmann or other similar approaches.
Changed:
<
<
  • How to apply/extend ggF experience to VH?

Other material

>
>
Deliverables: guidelines for the implementation of QCD perturbative uncertainties in the STXS VH stage-1.1 binning scheme; possibly softare tool for the implementation of uncertainties

EW prediction and uncertainties

  • As a first step, estimate the EW@NLO correction for each bin of STXS VH stage-1.1
  • As a second step, consider how to estimate EW@NLO uncertainties for the STXS VH stage-1.1

ATLAS / CMS comparisons and points of common discussion

  • HXSWG-VH often hosts ATLAS / CMS discussion for the VH(bb) experimental results, so far corresponding to main experimental publications

Other material
 

VH page for YR4

Deleted:
<
<
 

useful links

Changed:
<
<
  • the old page of the VH+VBF working group can be found here
  • the old page of the VH working group can be found here
>
>

Revision 12017-06-09 - LucaPerrozzi

Line: 1 to 1
Added:
>
>
META TOPICPARENT name="LHCHXSWG"

Working group for VH calculations

Role of subgroup: conduit for theorists to get information to experiments (and vice-versa).

General information

Topics of interest

Combination of NNLO QCD and NLO EW corrections in parton showers.

  • Short-term proposal: use POWHEG_MiNLO and reweight using YR4 EW correction factors either in the cross-section or differentially in VpT.
  • Longer-term: investigate/encourage authors to collaborate on joint implementation in POWHEG, as has already been done for (simpler) W/Z production.

How can predictions for gg—>VH contribution be improved?

  • try to improve approximation (tension between effectiveness of HEFT and boosted region where gg contribution is large);
  • can we exploit similarities with (very similar) gg—>HH process of G. Heinrich et al;
  • is there any mileage in a direct appeal to the Goldstone equivalence theorem (perhaps applies well enough in boosted region)?

Benchmark existing calculations of gg —> VH

  • Should benchmark existing calculations of gg —> VH, which may contain different treatments and approximations, both with and without matching/merging.

Discuss backgrounds

  • Desire within experiments for more guidance/sharing of experience with background generation and benchmarking in boosted region.
  • General agreement that, while not the focus of this subgroup, we should help to facilitate such discussions.

VH theoretical uncertainties under simplified template cross-section approach (STXS)

  • How should the calculation of uncertainties for VH be handled under simplified template cross-section approach (STXS), c.f. YR4.
  • In particular, correlated uncertainties between jet bins — either using Stewart/Tackmann or other similar approaches.
  • How to apply/extend ggF experience to VH?

Other material

VH page for YR4

useful links

  • the old page of the VH+VBF working group can be found here
  • the old page of the VH working group can be found here
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright &© 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback