% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@MASTERSTHESIS{ParraAsensio:617179,
author = {Parra Asensio, David},
othercontributors = {Kogler, Roman and Haller, Johannes},
title = {{T}he {I}nfluence of {P}arton {S}hower and {H}adronization
{M}odels on {M}achine {L}earning{J}et {T}aggers},
school = {University of Hamburg},
type = {Bachelorarbeit},
reportid = {PUBDB-2024-06640},
pages = {54},
year = {2024},
note = {Bachelorarbeit, University of Hamburg, 2024},
abstract = {In simulating high-energy particle collisions, Monte Carlo
event generatorsemploy different models to create parton
showers and replicate hadronization.The choice of model can
influence the final state of the simulation
and,consequently, the subsequent analysis of the generated
event. This study utilizeda machine learning algorithm to
discern the differences between quark and gluonjets
generated through different approaches to showering and
hadronization.Initially, particle jets from dijet events
generated using Pythia, Sherpa and Herwigwere compared
across various jet- and particle-level properties. Both
Pythia andSherpa utilize parton showers ordered by
transverse momentum, while Herwigemploys angular-ordered
showers. However, Sherpa and Herwig share similarcluster
hadronization models, while Pythia uses the Lund string
model. Thecomparison revealed that Pythia and Sherpa were
the most similar across mostproperties, due to a different
minimum transverse mometum of jets compared toHerwig. To
better understand the jet tagger’s decisions, the
characteristics ofquark and gluon jets were analyzed for
each generator. It was demonstrated thatgluon jets generally
contain more particles, and thus less momentum and energy,to
varying degrees, depending on the generator. A machine
learning algorithmwas then trained on the previously
generated Pythia and Sherpa samples andsubsequently tested
on data from all generators under consistent conditions.
Themodel trained on Pythia became specialized to Pythia and
showed reducedaccuracy when tested on Herwig and Sherpa,
whereas the model trained onSherpa performed almost equally
well across all three test datasets. While therewere
indications that the different hadronization models
influenced this outcome,the parton shower model appeared to
have minimal impact.},
cin = {CMS},
cid = {I:(DE-H253)CMS-20120731},
pnm = {611 - Fundamental Particles and Forces (POF4-611)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-611},
experiment = {EXP:(DE-MLZ)NOSPEC-20140101},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)2},
url = {https://bib-pubdb1.desy.de/record/617179},
}