SciPost Submission Page
Fast simulation of detector effects in Rivet
by Andy Buckley, Deepak Kar, Karl Nordstrom
This Submission thread is now published as
|Authors (as Contributors):||Andy Buckley · Deepak Kar|
|Arxiv Link:||https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.01637v3 (pdf)|
|Date submitted:||2019-12-24 01:00|
|Submitted by:||Buckley, Andy|
|Submitted to:||SciPost Physics|
We describe the design and implementation of detector-bias emulation in the Rivet MC event analysis system. Implemented using C++ efficiency and kinematic smearing functors, it allows detector effects to be specified within an analysis routine, customised to the exact phase-space and reconstruction working points of the analysis. A set of standard detector functions for the physics objects of Runs 1 and 2 of the ATLAS and CMS experiments is also provided. Finally, as jet substructure is an important class of physics observable usually considered to require an explicit detector simulation, we demonstrate that a smearing approach, tuned to available substructure data and implemented in Rivet, can accurately reproduce jet-structure biases observed by ATLAS.
Published as SciPost Phys. 8, 025 (2020)
Author comments upon resubmission
List of changes
1. Extension of validation plots and discussion to include tau and photon observables, using ttgamma events.
2. Inclusion of Rivet & Delphes analysis routines and Delphes steering cards, as ancillary material.
3. Clarification of motivation issues like unfolding as an ill-posed problem, the discussion of smearing accuracy (and its geometric representation in Fig 1), definition of ghost association, and various suggested improvements to phrasing.
4. Adding citations to CheckMATE and MadAnalysis5 in addition to Gambit, as active and public examples of recasting code using fast-simulated reco-level quantities (other suggested codes are non-public and/or use unfolded observables).
5. Removal of poorly-defined error estimates on fitted substructure smearing variables: the numerical values are less important than the observation that a simple smearing ansatz like this can obtain good results. Undoubtedly, further focused development could improve further, but that is beyond the scope of this in-principle demonstrator.
Submission & Refereeing History
You are currently on this page
Reports on this Submission
Anonymous Report 3 on 2020-1-22 (Invited Report)
The revised version sufficiently addresses the raised points.
Report 2 by Tilman Plehn on 2020-1-20 (Invited Report)
Thank you for taking into account my comments, all cool now!
Report 1 by Jonathan Butterworth on 2019-12-30 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Jonathan Butterworth, Report on arXiv:1910.01637v3, delivered 2019-12-30, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.1422
An improved version of an already good paper. My only (and entirely optional) comment/question is that now you have added citations to checkmate etc do you also want to add one to Contur, as an example of a BSM application which could directly make use of rivet routines that exploit your work?