Model | Parameters | '''Name of the Run''' | Plots |

ADD | L_ADD = 5 TeV NADD = 2 | ADD_LHC_Run01 | [attachment:ADD_LHC_Run01_Report.pdf LHC Plots report] |

ADD_Tevatron_Run01 | |||

L_ADD = 5 TeV NADD = 4 | ADD_LHC_Run02 | [attachment:ADD_LHC_Run02_Report.pdf LHC Plots report] | |

ADD_Tevatron_Run02 | |||

L_ADD = 5 TeV NADD = 6 | ADD_LHC_Run03 | [attachment:ADD_LHC_Run03_Report.pdf LHC Plots report] | |

ADD_Tevatron_Run03 | |||

Massless | L_MG = 1 TeV | Ml_LHC_Run01 | [attachment:Ml_LHC_Run01_Report.pdf LHC Plots report] |

Ml_Tev_Run01 | |||

L_MG = 2 TeV | Ml_LHC_Run02 | [attachment:Ml_LHC_Run02_Report.pdf LHC Plots report] | |

L_MG = 3 TeV | Ml_LHC_Run03 | ||

RS | L_RS = 1TeV M_grav = 1 TeV | RS_LHC_Run01 | [attachment:RS_LHC_Run01_Report.pdf LHC Plots report] |

RS_Tev_Run01 | |||

L_RS = 1 TeV M_grav = 100 GeV | RS_LHC_Run02 | [attachment:RS_LHC_Run02_Report.pdf LHC Plots report] | |

RS_Tev_Run02 | |||

L_RS = 3 TeV M_grav = 1 TeV | RS_LHC_Run03 | [attachment:RS_LHC_Run03_Report.pdf LHC Plots report] | |

RS_Tev_Run03 | |||

L_RS = 3 TeV M_grav = 100 GeV | RS_LHC_Run04 | [attachment:RS_LHC_Run04_Report.pdf LHC Plots report] | |

RS_Tev_Run04 |

ADD model

||[attachment:Results_LHC_d2.pdf LHC Comparative plot (PtGrav) for d=2]

[attachment:Results_LHC_d4.pdf LHC Comparative plot (PtGrav) for d=4]

[attachment:Results_LHC_d6.pdf LHC Comparative plot (PtGrav) for d=6]

[attachment:Results_LHC_ADD.pdf LHC combined comparative plot]

|| || || || || Massless grav. model ||[attachment:Results_LHC_Ml.pdf LHC combined comparative plot]

|| || || || || RS model ||

[attachment:Results_LHC_RS.pdf LHC combined comparative plot]

|| ====== + c) Jet Rates for the LHC samples ====== ||

ADD model

||[attachment:JetRates_ADD.pdf Jet rates]

|| || || || || Massless grav. model ||[attachment:JetRates_Ml.pdf Jet rates]

|| || || || || RS model ||[attachment:JetRates_RS.pdf Jet rates]

|| PS. The number of events is normalized by the total number of events of each run. ===== IV.2.2) Study on the shape of the curves (Pt grav) related to the mass of the graviton ===== Particularly for the RS model, we can see that the slope of the curve changes with the mass of the graviton (for example, compare RS with L_{RS}{{{3TeV/M_{grav} }}} 1 TeV against L_{RS}{{{3TeV/M_grav }}} 100 GeV). That is related to the fact we are plotting the pt of the graviton. The harder is the emission, the more inclined the curve will be. For the RS model is easy to see, because we can control the graviton mass (considering it is an input in this case). For the ADD it is a bit harder because the graviton should be an integration of the KK states. However, we know that the mass density depends on the number of extra dimensions. Therefore, we should have a different slope for each curve given its number of extra dimensions (d=2,4,6). The problem is that the difference of the slopes will not be large enough that it could be recognized from the pt of the graviton plot. Nevertheless, for the ADD model in MG, the graviton decays into 2 fake particles: x1 and x2. Hence, if we plot the invariant mass of x1 and x2 for each d=2,4,6 ([attachment:ADD_InvMassGrav.pdf Plot]), we could infeer the difference of the slope through the difference of mass density, showing the same physical behavior for both theories. ==== IV.3) Plan ==== ===== IV.3.1) What we already have ===== ===== IV.3.2) What is being taken care of ===== ===== IV.3.3) What is missing ===== ==== IV.3) To be discussed on our next meeting ==== 1) How to present the comparison of matching results with NLO/LO ones? (how to show that the difference on the k factors comes from the different techniques of computing the graviton emission?) Qiang: I think the comparison can be seen as just another validation way, in the sense that the MLM matched curve should lie inside the uncertainty band of the NLO one, after appropriate adaptation of normalization. And then further the MLM matching can give us more information such as 2nd/3rd jet distribution and jet rates, which the NLO calculation to G+J can not present 2) Confirmation of the plots we both should have: pt graviton, pt leading jet, pt 2nd jet, Ht distribution, rapidity 3) For the RS and massless model, the cuts for searching at the LHC and Tevatron are the same as for the ADD model, it is fine, right? 4) Since ADD model is only an effective model, the results we get are valid only as long as the scales involved in the hard scattering process do not exceed the fundamental scale, we need to quantify the sensitivity of our prediction to the unknown UV completion of the theory. Should we do this? 5) Does matching can give reliable results for total cross section or not? Or just for shape/distribution?It seems the total cross section after matching is definitely not the same as G+0jet's, or G+njet's. So what is the meaning of the matched total cross section? --- --- --- === V. Qiang's NLO results === For reference, the cuts in 0911.5095 (NLO QCD corrections to G+monojet) are the following: * '''LHC''': PTmiss>500GeV; ||\eta_j||<4.5 * '''Tevatron''': PTmiss>120GeV; harder jet : Ptj>150GeV with ||\eta_j||<1; softer jet with PT>60GeV, ||\eta_j||<3.6 is vetoed. * mur=muf= Pt graviton * 5 quark flavors considered * MSTW2008LO/NLO for LO/NLO results *(Will be changed to CTEQ6L1/6M for comparison)* ====== A question on comparing matched results with the NLO ones: ====== '''In the NLO work, indeed different jet algorithm from the one chosen in MG/ME is used, see the jet definition on page 5 of 0911.5095:'''

*'''Here D is just the jet cone separation Drjj, so should we set Drjj cut futher to the matched results, in order to compare with the NLO ones?''' In the matching procedure, the separation between jets is defined by the xqcut and pythia's QCUT parameters. We have to set Drjj to zero in the run_card.dat.'''For the LHC, "the jets are defined by the K_T algorithm with D=0.6, and are required to satisfy ||\eta_j||<4.5 and PTj>50GeV"'''

*'''For the Tevatron,"jets are defined by the K_T algorithm with D=0.7, and are required to satisfy ||\eta_j||<3.6 and PTj>20GeV"'''