Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Update on Diffractive Dijets Hardeep Bansil University of Birmingham 12/07/2013.

Published byBethany Carter Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Update on Diffractive Dijets Hardeep Bansil University of Birmingham 12/07/2013."— Presentation transcript:

1 Update on Diffractive Dijets Hardeep Bansil University of Birmingham 12/07/2013

2 Overall situation 2 For combined P8 SD+DD+ND anti-k T R=0.6 jets: Out of 2775883 events, 787100 pass both recon and truth cuts, 63262 pass truth only, 156497 pass recon only More reconstructed jets passing cuts than at truth level (shows up in unfolding) pT distribution of jets also exponential which can lead to big migrations Dijet cuts are |η| Jet 1, Jet 2 30 GeV, pT Jet 2 > 20 GeV Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND MC Hadron Level MC Reconstructed Data to Unfold Data Unfolded Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND smearing matrix Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND normalised matrix

3 Overall situation 3 For combined P8 SD+DD+ND anti-k T R=0.6 jets: Out of 2775883 events, 787100 pass both recon and truth cuts, 63262 pass truth only, 156497 pass recon only More reconstructed jets passing cuts than at truth level (shows up in unfolding) Look at bin by bin acceptance corrections for different samples shows large correction factors needed after gap sizes of 2 when selecting either jets at 30, 20 GeV or 20, 20 GeV Big spikes in Pythia 8 ND distribution can be attributed to getting the gap start position wrong more often than in SD and DD samples 30, 20 GeV cuts20, 20 GeV cuts

4 Migrations in pT 4 From last time, looked at matching jets between recon and truth level. Occasionally, need to swap the order of the leading and sub-leading jet in reconstructed dijet pair in order to match better to truth Matching of jets done based on dR cone = 0.5×jet cone size Look at p T percentage shift (recon-truth)/truth between jet at truth level and recon level when recon cuts only are passed, as a function of η in order to determine if there is actual p T dependence across detector Blue line (best fit) shows some pT dependence for shift – relatively small across pt range shown so aim to have one consistent correction factor to start with Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND (recon pT – truth pT)/ truth pT Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND mean of gaussian fit

5 Migrations in pT (as function of η) 5 Look at p T percentage shift (recon-truth)/truth between jet at truth level and recon level when recon cuts only are passed, as a function of η in order to determine if there is actual dependence across detector Plot on right gives good impression of calibration applied to recon jets as function of η. Linear fit to mean consistent with previous result - mean 5.8% over- reconstruction across fit range averaged over η (c.f. 8% for Herwig++ SD+ND) Variation of only 0.02% when varying tightness of matching – p T percentage shift relatively stable Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND (recon pT – truth pT)/ truth pT Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND mean of gaussian fit

6 After jet pT shift correction 6 Jet correction centres pT shift roughly around 0% now Slightly reduced number of jets passing reconstructed level cuts Applied factors to MC so far, not yet applied in data – need to investigate how number of events remaining once shift applied Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND mean of gaussian fit

7 After jet pT shift correction 7 30, 20 GeV cuts30, 20 GeV cuts after Pt shift Bin by bin acceptance corrections in gap size become smaller but still quite large Dijet distributions have acceptance corrections that look reasonable before and after pt shift correction so migrations in gap size are key factor here 30, 20 GeV cuts 30, 20 GeV cuts after Pt shift

8 Migrations in gap size 8 Due to dijet requirement, gap size distribution has a exponential fall Require forward gap > 3.0 in rapidity starting at edge of detector (|η| = 4.9) For combined P8 SD+DD+ND: Out of 2775883 events, 1190560 pass both truth and recon, 29380 pass truth only, 176383 pass recon only Pythia 8 gap filtered samples without weights (passing anti-kt6 dijet cuts): All samples produce significant migrations from small truth to larger recon gaps but requirement of dijet system in event puts some limit on the amount of migration, ND is main contributor for migrations in reverse direction Pythia 8 SDPythia 8 DDPythia 8 ND

9 Matching truth particles to clusters 9 Try to understand differences between truth particles and calorimeter clusters Taking particle at truth level that caused the forward gap algorithm to terminate and match to reco EM cluster (both with pT > 200 MeV) with dR Mean shift plot gives impression of calibration applied to clusters as function of η Matching suggests

10 Matching truth particles to clusters 10 Try to understand differences between truth particles and calorimeter clusters Taking particle at truth level that caused the forward gap algorithm to terminate and match to reco EM cluster (both with pT > 200 MeV) Make dR cut used to match clusters to truth particles tighter Best matched  Best matched with dr < 0.1  Best matched with dr < 0.05 Overall calibration behaviour stays the same Unlike with jets, mean shift not very stable as cluster matching requirements become tighter (~10% shift each time), although the percentage shift gets closer to 0% Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND Best matched Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND Best matched dR < 0.1 Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND Best matched dR < 0.05

11 Cluster E v η 11 Clusters passing gap selection criteria (p T > 200 MeV, significance cuts) At |η|=4.9, particles with p T > 200 MeV correspond to particles with E > 12 GeV Very little activity after |η|=4.8 Noticeably, get small number of clusters with E < 0 passing significance cuts Big jump in activity between HEC-FCAL transition (affects recon gap distribution)

12 Energy Flow method 12 Look at changing to energy flow method for selecting gaps and reconstructing ξ E±pz from clusters Track cuts remain unchanged: |eta| 200 MeV & at least 4 SCT hits, Pt > 300 MeV & at least 6 SCT hits d 0 wrt PV >= 1.5, z0*sin(theta) >= 1.5 (Stable) Truth particles: |η| 200 MeV, p charged > 500 MeV to better reflect what will be observed in the calorimeter Clusters (EM calibration): |η| < 4.8 For clusters, with 1.3 0.4 No cut on p (looked at cut with p cluster > 200 MeV but made negligible difference) For gap definition – not in Tile calorimeter, significance > threshold remains the same

13 Energy Flow method 13 Changing to use to energy flow method improves bin by bin corrections significantly for all samples Correction factor down to 2 for gaps between 3-5 Now more sensitive to all clusters, particularly in forward regions where cells are large so get more truth events at smaller gap size Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND intially Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND with Energy flow method

14 Energy Flow method + p T shift 14 Apply p T correction shift in addition to energy flow Controlling the excess of jets passing at recon level improves correction factor to be around 1.5 for gaps > 3 Compared to the rapidity gaps method, gap sizes are very slightly smaller Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND with Energy flow method Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND with Energy flow method + pt shift

15 Energy Flow method + pT shift 15 Improvement in unfolding so that ratio of data to unfolded goes from 4-5 to 1.5 for gaps > 3 Suggest that energy flow reconstruction method and pT shift correction should be used in future Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND Rapidity Gaps Method, No pt shift MC Hadron Level MC Reconstructed Data to Unfold Data Unfolded MC Hadron Level MC Reconstructed Data to Unfold Data Unfolded Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND with Energy flow method + pt shift

16 Comparison of Matrices 16 Rapidity Gaps Method, No Pt shift Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND with Energy flow method + pt shift Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND smearing matrix Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND normalised matrix Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND smearing matrix Pythia 8 SD+DD+ND normalised matrix

17 Summary Step by step process to determine appropriate correction factors Energy flow improves ability to match truth particles to measured clusters in calorimeters Look at ξ E±pz using energy flow method – determine correction factor for correcting recon back to truth in Pythia 8 and data – need to correct back to ξ=M X 2 /s Compare shapes of Pythia 8 ND and SD+DD to data Produce first differential cross sections using new method Look at systematic errors again Start investigating 20, 20 GeV cuts more seriously 17 Next steps

Download ppt "Update on Diffractive Dijets Hardeep Bansil University of Birmingham 12/07/2013."

Similar presentations

Trigger validation Ricardo Goncalo, RHUL Physics Validation - 14 September 2007.

Trigger validation Ricardo Goncalo, RHUL Physics Validation - 14 September 2007.
LHCb PatVeloTT Performance Adam Webber. Why Upgrade?  Currently we de-focus the beams o LHCb Luminosity ~ 2x10 32 cm -2 s -1 o ~ 1 interaction per bunch.

LHCb PatVeloTT Performance Adam Webber. Why Upgrade?  Currently we de-focus the beams o LHCb Luminosity ~ 2x10 32 cm -2 s -1 o ~ 1 interaction per bunch.
Jet and Jet Shapes in CMS

Jet and Jet Shapes in CMS
1 N. Davidson E/p single hadron energy scale check with minimum bias events Jet Note 8 Meeting 15 th May 2007.

1 N. Davidson E/p single hadron energy scale check with minimum bias events Jet Note 8 Meeting 15 th May 2007.
Validation of DC3 fully simulated W→eν samples (NLO, reconstructed in 11.0.42) Laura Gilbert 01/08/06.

Validation of DC3 fully simulated W→eν samples (NLO, reconstructed in ) Laura Gilbert 01/08/06.
Introduction to Hadronic Final State Reconstruction in Collider Experiments Introduction to Hadronic Final State Reconstruction in Collider Experiments.

Introduction to Hadronic Final State Reconstruction in Collider Experiments Introduction to Hadronic Final State Reconstruction in Collider Experiments.
1 Andrea Bangert, ATLAS SCT Meeting, 18.05.2007 Monte Carlo Studies Of Top Quark Pair Production Andrea Bangert, Max Planck Institute of Physics, CSC T6.

1 Andrea Bangert, ATLAS SCT Meeting, Monte Carlo Studies Of Top Quark Pair Production Andrea Bangert, Max Planck Institute of Physics, CSC T6.
1 N. Davidson, E. Barberio E/p single hadron energy scale check with minimum bias event Hadronic Calibration Workshop 26 th -27 th April 2007.

1 N. Davidson, E. Barberio E/p single hadron energy scale check with minimum bias event Hadronic Calibration Workshop 26 th -27 th April 2007.
Scintillator (semi)DHCAL? Vishnu Zutshi for. Introduction Can a scintillator (semi)digital calorimeter work? Cell sizes are necessarily 6-12 cm 2 Can.

Scintillator (semi)DHCAL? Vishnu Zutshi for. Introduction Can a scintillator (semi)digital calorimeter work? Cell sizes are necessarily 6-12 cm 2 Can.
1 N. Davidson Calibration with low energy single pions Tau Working Group Meeting 23 rd July 2007.

1 N. Davidson Calibration with low energy single pions Tau Working Group Meeting 23 rd July 2007.
General Trigger Philosophy The definition of ROI’s is what allows, by transferring a moderate amount of information, to concentrate on improvements in.

General Trigger Philosophy The definition of ROI’s is what allows, by transferring a moderate amount of information, to concentrate on improvements in.
November 1999Rick Field - Run 2 Workshop1 We are working on this! “Min-Bias” Physics: Jet Evolution & Event Shapes  Study the CDF “min-bias” data with.

November 1999Rick Field - Run 2 Workshop1 We are working on this! “Min-Bias” Physics: Jet Evolution & Event Shapes  Study the CDF “min-bias” data with.
Energy Flow and Jet Calibration Mark Hodgkinson Artemis Meeting 27 September 2007 Contains work by R.Duxfield,P.Hodgson, M.Hodgkinson,D.Tovey.

Energy Flow and Jet Calibration Mark Hodgkinson Artemis Meeting 27 September 2007 Contains work by R.Duxfield,P.Hodgson, M.Hodgkinson,D.Tovey.
W  eν The W->eν analysis is a phi uniformity calibration, and only yields relative calibration constants. This means that all of the α’s in a given eta.

W  eν The W->eν analysis is a phi uniformity calibration, and only yields relative calibration constants. This means that all of the α’s in a given eta.
Energy Flow Technique and *where I am Lily Have been looking at the technique developed by Mark Hodgkinson, Rob Duxfield of Sheffield. Here is a summary.

Energy Flow Technique and *where I am Lily Have been looking at the technique developed by Mark Hodgkinson, Rob Duxfield of Sheffield. Here is a summary.
What ATLAS would like to learn from the community : soft diffraction Emily Nurse (for ATLAS) Not a list of planned analyses, but rather some issues and.

What ATLAS would like to learn from the community : soft diffraction Emily Nurse (for ATLAS) Not a list of planned analyses, but rather some issues and.
19/07/20061 Nectarios Ch. Benekos 1, Rosy Nicolaidou 2, Stathes Paganis 3, Kirill Prokofiev 3 for the collaboration among: 1 Max-Planck-Institut für Physik,

19/07/20061 Nectarios Ch. Benekos 1, Rosy Nicolaidou 2, Stathes Paganis 3, Kirill Prokofiev 3 for the collaboration among: 1 Max-Planck-Institut für Physik,
August 30, 2006 CAT physics meeting Calibration of b-tagging at Tevatron 1. A Secondary Vertex Tagger 2. Primary and secondary vertex reconstruction 3.

August 30, 2006 CAT physics meeting Calibration of b-tagging at Tevatron 1. A Secondary Vertex Tagger 2. Primary and secondary vertex reconstruction 3.
Ratio of Three over Two Jet Cross Sections: Update 36 pb -1 P.Kokkas, I.Papadopoulos, C.Fountas University of Ioannina, Greece QCD High p T Meeting 17.

Ratio of Three over Two Jet Cross Sections: Update 36 pb -1 P.Kokkas, I.Papadopoulos, C.Fountas University of Ioannina, Greece QCD High p T Meeting 17.
Fermilab MC Workshop April 30, 2003 Rick Field - Florida/CDFPage 1 The “Underlying Event” in Run 2 at CDF  Study the “underlying event” as defined by.

Fermilab MC Workshop April 30, 2003 Rick Field - Florida/CDFPage 1 The “Underlying Event” in Run 2 at CDF  Study the “underlying event” as defined by.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google