SciPost Submission Page
Event Generation with Sherpa 2.2
by Enrico Bothmann, Gurpreet Singh Chahal, Stefan Höche, Johannes Krause, Frank Krauss, Silvan Kuttimalai, Sebastian Liebschner, Davide Napoletano, Marek Schönherr, Holger Schulz, Steffen Schumann, Frank Siegert
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Enrico Bothmann · Gurpreet Singh Chahal · Stefan Höche · Frank Krauss · Steffen Schumann · Frank Siegert |
Submission information | |
---|---|
Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.09127v2 (pdf) |
Date accepted: | 2019-09-10 |
Date submitted: | 2019-09-05 02:00 |
Submitted by: | Schumann, Steffen |
Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
Ontological classification | |
---|---|
Academic field: | Physics |
Specialties: |
|
Approaches: | Experimental, Theoretical, Computational |
Abstract
Sherpa is a general-purpose Monte Carlo event generator for the simulation of particle collisions in high-energy collider experiments. We summarize essential features and improvements of the Sherpa 2.2 release series, which is heavily used for event generation in the analysis and interpretation of LHC Run 1 and Run 2 data. We highlight a decade of developments towards ever higher precision in the simulation of particle-collision events.
Author comments upon resubmission
We hope that the new version meets the requirements and the paper can be published in its current form.
List of changes
In addressing the referees comments we have extended the presentation of the non perturbative model in Sherpa, in particular Sec. 2.7 and 2.8. Furthermore, we added a section on tuning of the various model parameters and now provide an appendix that lists the default-tune parameters.
We have furthermore clarified the treatment of mass effects in the parton shower. Also, we more clearly state the default assumed for the strong coupling in the simulations.
Lastly, we have fixed a number of minor grammatical mistakes.
Published as SciPost Phys. 7, 034 (2019)
Anonymous on 2019-09-05 [id 595]
Missing the verb in the original comment, it should read 'We would like to thank the referees ...'
Apologies for that.