1 C-Tagger Development Status Update Kittikul Kovitanggoon* (CU) Gerrit Van Onsem (VUB) Dinko Ferencek (RU) CMS-POG BTAG-WG Meeting June 18, 2015.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Towards a C++ based ZVTOP Ben Jeffery (Oxford) LCFI Collaboration ZVTOP Introduction Motivation Progress Plans & Release Schedule.
Advertisements

Fast b tagging at L2 B tagging meeting XX-XX-04 Sascha Caron (NIKHEF) … using the Silicon Track Trigger (STT) Methods to do a very fast b tagging Some.
1 Reconstruction of Non-Prompt Tracks Using a Standalone Barrel Tracking Algorithm.
1 B-tagging meeting overview Li bo Shandong University.
Liang, Introduction to Java Programming, Eighth Edition, (c) 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved Chapter 24 Sorting.
Single Top Trigger Studies Top Trigger Meeting, 21 May Patrick Ryan, MSU Single Top Trigger Studies Top Trigger Meeting 21 May 2007 Patrick Ryan.
September 27, 2005FAKT 2005, ViennaSlide 1 B-Tagging and ttH, H → bb Analysis on Fully Simulated Events in the ATLAS Experiment A.H. Wildauer Universität.
Top Turns Ten March 2 nd, Measurement of the Top Quark Mass The Low Bias Template Method using Lepton + jets events Kevin Black, Meenakshi Narain.
Update on Tools FTK Meeting 06/06/06 Erik Brubaker U of Chicago.
Single Top Trigger Studies Top Trigger Meeting, 6 June Patrick Ryan, MSU Single Top Trigger Studies Top Trigger Meeting 4 June 2007 Patrick Ryan.
Progress on B-tagging Efficiency Monica Dunford May 22 nd, 2007.
1 VariableExtractor VS BTagAnalyzer Set up by using BTagAnalyzer 'lite' version which including the same IVF as VariableExtractor with CMSSW_5_3_20
José E. García b -tagging performance with xKalman and iPatRec With the help of: S. Correard, I. Gavrilenko, S. González, A. Poppleton, E. Ros, A. Rozanov,
VH (H->bb) Cut Flow Status. Introduction Hoping to start the mini-ntuple etc production now Some push over last few days but still not as much as would.
E. Devetak - LCWS t-tbar analysis at SiD Erik Devetak Oxford University LCWS /11/2008 Flavour tagging for ttbar Hadronic ttbar events ID.
LCWS 2004, ParisSonja Hillert, University of Oxfordp. 1 Flavour tagging performance analysis for vertex detectors LCWS 2004, Paris Sonja Hillert (Oxford)
Event View G. Watts (UW) O. Harris (UW). Philosophy EventView Goals Object Identification & Interpretation Is that a jet or an electron? Is that jet a.
Sung-Won Lee 1 Study of Hadronic W Decays in the Jets + MET Final LHC Kittikul Kovitanggoon * & Sung-Won Lee Texas Tech University Michael Weinberger.
TtH(H  bb) AOD-Based Analysis And DPD maker Simon Dean University College London ATLAS-UK Top Physics Meeting 17/09/2008.
Study of pp  γ +N Jets Channel in CMS S. Bhattacharya, B.C. Choudhary, Pooja Gupta University of Delhi, India.
Introduction Advantages/ disadvantages Code examples Speed Summary Running on the AOD Analysis Platforms 1/11/2007 Andrew Mehta.
B-tagging Performance based on Boosted Decision Trees Hai-Jun Yang University of Michigan (with X. Li and B. Zhou) ATLAS B-tagging Meeting February 9,
E. Devetak – CERN CLIC1 LCFI: vertexing and flavour-tagging Erik Devetak Oxford University CERN-CLIC Meeting 14/05/09 Vertexing Flavour Tagging Charge.
Status of Muon Trigger Efficiency Measurement for ICHEP Benedikt Hegner, Benjamin Klein, Yvonne Küssel, Patricia Lobelle, Markus Marienfeld, Rahmat Rahmat,
LCFI Package and Flavour 3TeV Tomáš Laštovička Institute of Physics AS CR CLIC WG3 Meeting 9/6/2010.
Optimizing CMS Data Formats for Analysis Peerut Boonchokchuay August 11 th,
Vertex finding and B-Tagging for the ATLAS Inner Detector A.H. Wildauer Universität Innsbruck CERN ATLAS Computing Group on behalf of the ATLAS collaboration.
1 Development of charm quark tagger for supersymmetric particle search at the CMS detector Kittikul Kovitanggoon, Burin Asavapibhop, Narumon Suwonjandee.
Argonne Jamboree January 2010 Esteban Fullana AOD example analysis.
Taikan Suehara et al., ILC tokusui meeting, 21 Dec page 1 Status of LCFIPlus Taikan Suehara, Tomohiko Tanabe (ICEPP, U. Tokyo)
Integration of the ATLAS Tag Database with Data Management and Analysis Components Caitriana Nicholson University of Glasgow 3 rd September 2007 CHEP,
1 Single top in e+jets channel Outline : - Data and MC samples - Overview of the analysis - Loose and topological cuts - MC efficiencies and expected number.
Update on Diffractive Dijet Production Search Hardeep Bansil University of Birmingham Birmingham ATLAS Weekly Meeting 24/01/2013.
Online monitor for L2 CAL upgrade Giorgio Cortiana Outline: Hardware Monitoring New Clusters Monitoring
Taikan Suehara et al., Arlington, 25 Oct page 1 Status of LCFIPlus Taikan Suehara, Tomohiko Tanabe (ICEPP, U. Tokyo)
Combined HEC/EMEC testbeam data can be read and analyzed within the ATLAS Athena framework A “cookbook” gives an introduction for how to access the data.
CPPM (IN2P3-CNRS et Université de la Méditerranée), Marseille, France Olivier Leroy, for the Marseille group Trigger meeting, CERN19 April 2004 b-tagging.
Fast Simulation and the Higgs: Parameterisations of photon reconstruction efficiency in H  events Fast Simulation and the Higgs: Parameterisations of.
1 OO Muon Reconstruction in ATLAS Michela Biglietti Univ. of Naples INFN/Naples Atlas offline software MuonSpectrometer reconstruction (Moore) Atlas combined.
The “Comparator” Atlfast vs. Full Reco Automated Comparison Chris Collins-Tooth 19 th February 2006.
Fully Hadronic Top Anti-Top Decay (Using TopView) Fully Hadronic Top Anti-Top Decay (Using TopView) Ido Mussche NIPHAD meeting, Februari 9 th :
B-tagging based on Boosted Decision Trees
E. Devetak - IOP 081 Anomalous – from tools to physics Erik Devetak Oxford - RAL IOP 2008 Lancaster‏ Anomalous coupling (Motivation – Theory)
Study of tt production at NLO Stan Bentvelsen Edwin Bos.
Tomas Hreus, Pascal Vanlaer Study of Strangeness Production in Underlying Event at 7 TeV 1QCD low pT meeting, 18/03/2011.
B-Tagging Algorithms at the CMS Experiment Gavril Giurgiu (for the CMS Collaboration) Johns Hopkins University DPF-APS Meeting, August 10, 2011 Brown University,
Study of B s         Supreet Pal Singh Prof. Kajari Mazumdar Prof. J.B.Singh 1India-CMS Meeting 27th-28th.
1 Status of Tracker Alignment b-tagging Workshop Nhan Tran (JHU) On behalf of the Tracker Alignment Group.
ATLAS ATLAS muon CSC clustering David Adams Brookhaven National Laboratory June 15, 2006 Muon Software Updated 11:00 EDT June 15, 2006.
The interface to EvtGen in CMS Roberto Covarelli University of Rochester EvtGen workshop, 06/12/2010.
E. Devetak - SiD Meeting RAL 081 Anomalous – from tools to physics Erik Devetak Oxford - RAL SiD 04/2008 Abingdon‏ Anomalous coupling (Motivation.
Current Status of e-ID based on BDT Algorithm Hai-Jun Yang University of Michigan (with X. Li, T. Dai, A. Wilson, B. Zhou) BNL Analysis Jamboree March.
Photon Reconstruction Efficiencies in Higgs → γγ Events Neil Cooper-Smith RHUL ATLAS UK Higgs Meeting - Durham 11/01/07.
ILD Optimisation Meeting, 21 st May 2008Sonja Hillert (Oxford)p. 0 LCFIVertex: suggestions for input to DST files  Introduction  Minimal flavour tag.
MAUS Status A. Dobbs CM43 29 th October Contents MAUS Overview Infrastructure Geometry and CDB Detector Updates CKOV EMR KL TOF Tracker Global Tracking.
H->WW->lνlν Analysis - Improvements and results - - Data and MC - Higgs Working group meeting, 6 January 2011 Magda Chełstowska & Rosemarie Aben.
Starting Analysis with Athena (Esteban Fullana Torregrosa) Rik Yoshida High Energy Physics Division Argonne National Laboratory.
Monthly video-conference, 18/12/2003 P.Hristov1 Preparation for physics data challenge'04 P.Hristov Alice monthly off-line video-conference December 18,
Update on the new reconstruction software F. Noferini E. Fermi center INFN CNAF EEE Analysis Meeting - 28/09/20151.
Exploring Artificial Neural Networks to Discover Higgs at LHC Using Neural Networks for B-tagging By Rohan Adur
AOD example analysis Argonne Jamboree January 2010
B Tagging studies with non prompt J/Ψ's
Full Sim Status Estel Perez 27 July 2017.
Erik Devetak Oxford University 18/09/2008
Using IP Chi-Square Probability
Tree based validation tool for track reconstruction
Charles F. Maguire Vanderbilt University
b-ID: p17 certification: Version 1.1 seems solid so far
Converted photon and π0 discrimination based on H  cut-based analysis Zhen Zhang IHEP
LVL2 Missing Et Trigger Status
Presentation transcript:

1 C-Tagger Development Status Update Kittikul Kovitanggoon* (CU) Gerrit Van Onsem (VUB) Dinko Ferencek (RU) CMS-POG BTAG-WG Meeting June 18, 2015

Overview CMSSW-based c-tagger based on CMSSW-based CSV b-tag algorithm (using the JetTagMVAExtractor code, so called ‘VariableExtractor’ for the tree production) TMVA-based c-tagger(s) – “v1” using Clemens' setup (using ‘VariableExtractor’ for the tree production) – “v2” using Dinko and Stevens' setup (using ‘BTagAnalyzer’, PAT–based, for the tree production) C-tag twiki with work plan, link to presentations, We are aiming to use the BTagAnalyzer as the future tree production for at least the TMVA- based b/c taggers because BTagAnalyzer are in general more flexible and better maintained by BTV group (involving more expertise) than the current VariableExtractor. In this talk, we will present the status and problem we are encountering.

3 Introduction of TMVA-based v2 ● TMVA-based c-tagger (i.e. training outside CMSSW) based on the b-tagging setup of Dinko Ferencek (and others)[1][2] [1] [2] [1] BTagAnalyzer is used to extract ntuple containing variables for b- tag training Current set up is using the CSV not IVF Studying BTagAnalyzer and TagVarExtractor in order to be modified for c-tag purpose  Including IVF on top of CSV  Optimized the selections based on charm quark kinematics  Adding ATLAS variables

4 Setting Up BTagAnalyzer ● Set up by using BTagAnalyzer 'lite' version which including the same IVF as VariableExtractor with CMSSW_5_3_20 ● Adding selections to distinguish charm jets from b jets - process.inclusiveVertexFinder.vertexMinDLen2DSig = cms.double(1.25) #2.5 sigma for b tagger. However, lifetime D mesons on average about half of lifetime of B meson -> half of significance - process.inclusiveVertexFinder.vertexMinDLenSig = cms.double(0.25) #0.5 sigma for b tagger. However, lifetime D mesons on average about half of lifetime of B meson -> half of significance - process.inclusiveSecondaryVertexFinderTagInfosAODPFlow.vertexCuts.distSig2dMin = 1.5 #default value 2.0 to release cuts on flight dist. However, lifetime D mesons on average about half of lifetime of B meson -> half of distance ● Adding variables to BTagAnalyzer to match the VariableExtractor including ATLAS variables Dataset: /TTJets_MassiveBinDECAY_TuneZ2star_8TeV-madgraph-tauola/ Summer12_DR53X-PU_S10_START53_V7A-v1/AODSIM Running on the same root file 0244AEA1-7CE1-E B D4C3C.root for the exact same 100 events (event numbers checked)

5 Workflows BTagAnalyzer (PAT Based) VariableExtractor (CMSSW Based) selectedPATAK5PFJets with PF2PAT Hadron-based jet flavour inclusiveSVFinder TagInfosAODPFlow IPTagInfos AODPFlow CombinedSVComputerV2 Ntuple PF CHS selectedAK5PFJets Hadron-based jet flavour inclusiveSVFinder TagInfos IPTagInfos CombinedSVComputerV2 Ntuple

6 Status of BTagAnalyzer for C-tag At first, there are several discrepancies between the trees of BTagAnalyzer and VariableExtractor. Most of the differences are identified and solved. All jet kinematic and SV variables are agreed between the both frameworks. More comparisons are in the BackUp. ➢ Changed Track weight in CombinedSVComputerV2 ➢ Turned off PF2PAT ➢ Turned off PF CHS ➢ Removed the filter in BtagAnalyzer ➢ Used raw jet pT ➢ Used only default sorting by sip2dSig ➢ Same GT for both VariableExtractor and BTaganalyzer “START53_V27” ➢ Raw Jet pT > 30 GeV and |eta|<2.4 ● However, The track variables at the first track (“_0”) have good agreements ● The agreements in the shape of the second (“_1”) and the third track (“_2”). There might be some selections different between the two frameworks.

7 VariableExtractor VS BTagAnalyzer

8

9 Investigating by Printing out Variables ● We are also using “cout” into the BtagAnalyzer, CombinedSVComputerV2, and TagVarExtractor. 1. BTagAnalyzer gives the same values as from CombinedSVComputerV2 for each jets. 2. If flightDistance2dVal is not exist in CombinedSVComputerV2,BTagAnalyzer will fill as set for the default value. 3. The track variables are sorted with trackSip2dsig. 4. In some events, BTagAnalyzer gives more jets than CombinedSVComputerV2. This is due to the Computer will not save the jets with less than 1 track. ● Gerrit provided the “cout” from the VariableExtractor. It was checked. We have the same jets and same track variable values. ● While BtagAnalyzer is using the TagVarExtractor to get the flat tree, VariableExtractor is using the local script to get the flat tree. We suspect that this might be the cause of discrepancies we saw in the second and third track variables.

10 Conclusions ● All variables are well agreed between BTagAnalyzer and VariableExtractor except the second and third track variables. ● Need to check the local script to get the flat tree for VariableExtractor. ● As of now our priority is to implement the C-tag in CMSSW for Run II, this study will be less piority.

Back Up 11

12 VariableExtractor VS BTagAnalyzer

13 VariableExtractor VS BTagAnalyzer

14 VariableExtractor VS BTagAnalyzer

15 VariableExtractor VS BTagAnalyzer

16 VariableExtractor VS BTagAnalyzer

17 VariableExtractor VS BTagAnalyzer

18 VariableExtractor VS BTagAnalyzer

19 VariableExtractor VS BTagAnalyzer

20 VariableExtractor VS BTagAnalyzer

21 VariableExtractor VS BTagAnalyzer

22 VariableExtractor VS BTagAnalyzer

23 VariableExtractor VS BTagAnalyzer

24 VariableExtractor VS BTagAnalyzer

25 VariableExtractor VS BTagAnalyzer

26 VariableExtractor VS BTagAnalyzer

27 VariableExtractor VS BTagAnalyzer

28 VariableExtractor VS BTagAnalyzer

29 VariableExtractor VS BTagAnalyzer

30 VariableExtractor VS BTagAnalyzer