First attempt at reweighting Powheg+Pythia → Powheg+Herwig in W→μν events.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Monte Carlo tuning using ATLAS data Davide Costanzo (on behalf of the ATLAS collaboration) 1MonteCarlo tuning using ATLAS data23/08/2011.
Advertisements

Peter Schleper, Hamburg University SUSY07 Non-SUSY Searches at HERA 1 Non-SUSY Searches at HERA Peter Schleper Hamburg University SUSY07 July 27, 2007.
PDCMSSW - Luca Perrozzi1 Looking for… Punch throughs… Looking for… Punch throughs…
Low-p T Multijet Cross Sections John Krane Iowa State University MC Workshop Oct , Fermilab Part I: Data vs MC, interpreted as physics Part II:
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.
Kevin Black Meenakshi Narain Boston University
T-CHANNEL MODELING UNCERTAINTIES AND FURTHER QUESTIONS TO TH AND NEW FIDUCIAL MEASUREMENTS Julien Donini, Jose E. Garcia, Dominic Hirschbuehl, Luca Lista,
CDF Joint Physics Group June 27, 2003 Rick FieldPage 1 PYTHIA Tune A versus Run 2 Data  Compare PYTHIA Tune A with Run 2 data on the “underlying event”.
W/Z PRODUCTION AND PROPERTIES Anton Kapliy (University of Chicago) on behalf of the ATLAS collaboration PHENO-2012.
H->ZZ->4l Update Trying to re-do CSC note: MC Sample Trigger Eff. Electron Selection Eff. Muon Selection Eff.
1 A Preliminary Model Independent Study of the Reaction pp  qqWW  qq ℓ qq at CMS  Gianluca CERMINARA (SUMMER STUDENT)  MUON group.
Lepton efficiency & fake rate Yousuke Kataoka University of Tokyo Content definitions of leptons p2 efficiency and fake rate for SU3 ( ) p3, p4.
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.
Hadronic Event Shapes at 7 TeV with CMS Detector S,Banerjee, G. Majumdar, MG + ETH, Zurich CMS PAS QCD M. Guchait DAE-BRNS XIX High Energy Physics.
Validation for PythiaVPhoton10 Jiahang Zhong (Academia Sinica)
Cedar and pre-Daikon Validation ● CC PID parameter based CC sample selections with Birch, Cedar, Carrot and pre-Daikon. ● Cedar validation for use with.
Muons from  /K CSC samples vs generator predictions: preliminary comparisons.
Met and Normalization Sarah Eno. I wanted to see if we can learn anything about the MET normalization issue using a toy monte carlo. first, we need a.
Beam Extrapolation Fit Peter Litchfield  An update on the method I described at the September meeting  Objective;  To fit all data, nc and cc combined,
Status of the hadronic cross section (small angle) Federico Nguyen February 22 nd 2005  the 2002 data sample and available MC sets  trigger efficiency.
Study of the ND Data/MC for the CC analysis October 14, 2005 MINOS collaboration meeting M.Ishitsuka Indiana University.
1 Constraining ME Flux Using ν + e Elastic Scattering Wenting Tan Hampton University Jaewon Park University of Rochester.
QCD Background Estimation From Data Rob Duxfield, Dan Tovey University of Sheffield.
October 2011 David Toback, Texas A&M University Research Topics Seminar1 David Toback Texas A&M University For the CDF Collaboration CIPANP, June 2012.
Measurement of the 3-jet to 2-jet Cross Sections Ratio in pp Collisions at 7TeV Update : Pythia8 tune 2C P.Kokkas, I.Papadopoulos, C.Fountas University.
A search for the ZZ signal in the 3 lepton channel Azeddine Kasmi Robert Kehoe Southern Methodist University Thanks to: H. Ma, M. Aharrouche.
Update on Diffractive Dijets Hardeep Bansil University of Birmingham 12/07/2013.
1 EMCAL Reconstruction in Pass pp 900 GeV 29/03/2010 Gustavo Conesa Balbastre.
Parton-level study of Z  l + l - for luminosity measurement Motivation PDF uncertainties Parton-level study & rate estimation Relaxed cuts & Conclusions.
Moriond QCD March 24, 2003Eric Kajfasz, CPPM/D01 b-production cross-section at the TeVatron Eric Kajfasz, CPPM/D0 for the CDF and D0 collaborations.
Responsibles: Jon Butterworth (UCL), Claire Gwenlan (Oxford), Daniela Rebuzzi (Pavia, INFN) ATLAS MC Validation Meeting, 24 May 2011 HERWIG validation.
Update on Diffractive Dijet Production Search Hardeep Bansil University of Birmingham 23/07/2012.
Search for a 4 th generation t’ quark in p-p collision at ATLAS -Suyog Shrestha, Iowa State University.
The Univ. of Tokyo Dept. of Physics 1 New MT method to remove SUSY contaminations CSC Note 1&2 : 27 Aug 2007 Ginga Akimoto, Y. Kataoka, S. Asai The University.
QM2002 (July / / Nantes / France)Susumu SATO (JSPS) for the PHENIX collaboration page 1 Susumu SATO Japan Society for the Promotion of Science,
NEAR DETECTOR SPECTRA AND FAR NEAR RATIOS Amit Bashyal August 4, 2015 University of Texas at Arlington 1.
I'm concerned that the OS requirement for the signal is inefficient as the charge of the TeV scale leptons can be easily mis-assigned. As a result we do.
Hadronic Calibration Workshop Munich - May 06 D. Cavalli – S. Resconi 1  Performance (linearity, resolution, tails) studied on: -- Rome data  Many different.
VHF working meeting, 4 Oct Measurement of associated charm production in W final states at  s=7TeV J. Alcaraz, I. Josa, J. Santaolalla (CIEMAT,
Royal Holloway Department of Physics Top quark pair cross section measurements in ATLAS Michele Faucci Giannelli On behalf of the ATLAS collaboration.
Estimating the isolated lepton rate in multi-jet events Manuel & Alexander Ivo, Stan, Martijn, Auke, Els et al.
QCD estimate with the matrix method Alexander D. with the help of many…
Status of the Higgs to tau tau analysis Carlos Solans Cristobal Cuenca.
1 QCD fits via TFractionFitter ● I took another look at the QCD fit problem: ● A fraction of the fits hangs in an infinite loop ● A (smaller) fraction.
I have 6 events (Nch>=100) on a background of ?
2nd lepton veto, in the one-lepton SUSY analysis
(members of the group) Underlying CMS F.Ambroglini, D.Acosta, P.Bartalini, A.De Roeck, L.Fanò, R. Field, K.Kotov, E.Izaguirre, A.Vilela.
Erik Devetak Oxford University 18/09/2008
Control plots at hadron level from official MC production
Time Independent Analysis
Missing ET with the First Data: Wl (l=e,)
Multilepton production at HERA
Resolved ttbar analysis status
Generator Study of Tevatron collider
ttH (Hγγ) search and CP measurement
γ γ-> hadron Background Events at CLIC
Precision measurements of electroweak parameters at the HL-LHC
Higgs → t+t- in Vector Boson Fusion
Uncertainties on top quark mass due to modeling
Alan Barr Claire Gwenlan
TITLE GOES HERE Sub title goes here. TITLE GOES HERE Sub title goes here.
TITLE GOES HERE Sub title goes here. TITLE GOES HERE Sub title goes here.
semileptonic ttbar + jet events
Mokka vs. LCDG4 Comparison
STAR Analysis Meeting - BNL
Tracks and double partons
Tracks and double partons
A brief update on b-tagging of High P jets
Study of Top properties at LHC
W and Z+ Jets Comparing event generators for Vector Boson events
Presentation transcript:

First attempt at reweighting Powheg+Pythia → Powheg+Herwig in W→μν events

2 Statistics ● AOD/D3PD statistics for W → μ -- ν: ● Powheg+Pythia: 17M ● Powheg+Herwig: 3M ● Much smaller statistics in secondary samples hurts the uncertainty on C_W ● Powheg+Herwig EVGEN sample = 17M ● Can we reweight Powheg+Pythia to Powheg+Herwig at EVGEN level, and then use “reweighted” Powheg+Pythia instead? ● First try today: 2D reweighting in mu_p T x nu_p T

3 mu_pT nu_pT Scale factor to convert Powheg+Pythia → Powheg+Herwig 1D version of the scale factor: mu_pT Note that the scale factor spans the entire phase space (not just fiducial)

4 First test: looking at truth-level, fiducial region What's going on here? The “Powheg+Pythia(reweighted)” looks nothing like Powheg+Herwig, while the default Powheg+Pythia is almost exactly the same? Explanation: ah, but we apply W p T reweighting, which brings Powheg+Pythia and Powheg+Herwig into a good agreement without the need for extra kinematic reweighting mu_pT Black = Powheg+Herwig Red = Powheg+Pythia Green = Powheg+Pythia(reweighted) Ratios of Powheg+Pythia and Powheg+Pythia(reweighted) to Powheg+Herwig

5 First test: looking at truth-level, fiducial region, NOT using W p T reweighting We see here that if W pT reweighting is NOT applied, then the default Powheg+Pythia differs from Powheg+Herwig. In that case, kinematic mu_pt x nu_pt improves agreement. For the next few slides, I disable W p T reweighting. mu_pT Black = Powheg+Herwig Red = Powheg+Pythia Green = Powheg+Pythia(reweighted) Ratios of Powheg+Pythia and Powheg+Pythia(reweighted) to Powheg+Herwig

6 Lepton p T and neutrino p T at truth-level, fiducial region mu_p T nu_p T At truth-level, Powheg+Pythia(reweighted) and Powheg+Herwig look similar. What about detector level? Muon pT (same plot as last slide)Neutrino pT

7 Lepton p T and neutrino p T at reco- level mu_p T MET At reco-level, Powheg+Pythia(reweighted) and Powheg+Herwig still have similar muon p T spectra. But MET shows ~2% disagreement around the 25 GeV cut. This is despite the fact that neutrino p T is compatible at truth level. Muon pT (same plot as last slide)Neutrino pT

8 Effect on C_W ● What this all means for C_W factors: – Here, W p T reweighting is NOT applied ● Powheg+Herwig = ± 0.04 % ● Powheg+Pythia = ± 0.02 % ● Powheg+Pythia(reweighted) = ± 0.02 % ● EVGEN-level kinematic reweighting only slightly improves the agreement in C_W ● Still large residual difference, perhaps due to reco-level MET difference between Pythia and Herwig?

9 ONE LAST TRY ● What if we try to reweight based on Truth_MET, rather than neutrino momentum? ● The hope is that differences due to hadronization between Pythia and Powheg are reflected already at the level of Truth_MET

10 TRUTH_MET: definitions I tried reweighting with two definitions: Definition 1: NonInt Definition 2: (Int + Muons)

11 MET at reco-level mu_p T MET Conclusions: even if reweighting is based on Truth_MET, the reco-level spectra are still deferent between Powheg+Pythia and Powheg+Herwig, MET, reweighting via Truth_MET definition 2MET, reweighting via Truth_MET definition 1