4.7 Article

Accelerating LHC event generation with simplified pilot runs and fast PDFs

Journal

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C
Volume 82, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-11087-1

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab)
  2. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, HEP User Facility [DE-AC02-07CH11359]
  3. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research, Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) program
  4. UK Science and Technology Facil-ities Council (STFC) [ST/S000887/1, ST/T001011/1]
  5. STFC SWIFT-HEP project [ST/V002627/1]
  6. BMBF [05H21MGCAB]
  7. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) [456104544]
  8. European Union [722104]
  9. Royal Society [URF\R1\180549, RGF\EA\181033, CEC19\100349, RF\ERE\210397]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The poor computing efficiency of precision event generators for LHC physics is a bottleneck for Monte-Carlo event simulations. By focusing on the PDF evaluator and matrix-element generator, we have found solutions to reduce the computing footprint while maintaining the accuracy of the event sample.
Poor computing efficiency of precision event generators for LHC physics has become a bottleneck for Monte-Carlo event simulation campaigns. We provide solutions to this problem by focusing on two major components of general-purpose event generators: The PDF evaluator and the matrix-element generator. For a typical production setup in the ATLAS experiment, we show that the two can consume about 80% of the total runtime. Using NLO simulations of pp -> +t- pound + jets and pp -> t (t)over bar+ jets as an example, we demonstrate that the computing footprint of LHAPDF and SHERPA can be reduced by factors of order 10, while maintaining the formal accuracy of the event sample. The improved codes are made publicly available.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available