Nikolay’s Analysis: mSUGRA Study #1 Nikolay’s Analysis: mSUGRA 02/11/05 ISAJET 7.6X – all SUSY processes at 14 TeV 50,000 events Geverator-level study Event selection: 2 high t-jets plus soft t-jets to choose c20-c20 events PT(1st t)vis > 40, PT(2nd t)vis > 40, PT(3rd t)vis > 20 PT(J1)+ETmiss > 400 GeV |h| < 2.5 for tau’s 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study

TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study 02/11/05 N(generated) = 50,000 events tau5 tau9 tau14 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study

TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study 03/29/05 Dm=10 First ATLFAST simulation  L dt = 160 fb-1 LS OS OS-LS Dm=15 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study

Nikolay’s Analysis: mSUGRA Study #3a Nikolay’s Analysis: mSUGRA 05/07/05 ISAJET 7.6X – all SUSY processes at 14 TeV 50,000 events???? ATLFAST simulation Event selection: 2 high t-jets plus soft t-jets to choose c20-c20 events PT(1st t)vis > 40, PT(2nd t)vis > 40, PT(3rd t)vis > 20 PT(J1)+ETmiss > 400 GeV |h| < 2.5 for tau’s 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study

TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study Study #3b ATLFAST simulation 05/07/05  L dt = 160 fb-1  L dt = 200 fb-1 LS OS OS-LS  L dt = 160 fb-1  L dt = 120 fb-1 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study

TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study Study #3c 05/07/05 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study

TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study Next Step (5/07/05) 1) Keep all histograms with the same luminosity. Can you generate events equivalent to 200 fb-1? 2) Fit the LS shape as a function of mass (Dm) 3) Fit the OS-LS shape as OS-LS(Dm)=N1xG (Dm)+N2xLS(Dm) where N1=number of signal events N2=number of BG events 4) We need Dm = 6.5 GeV 5) Re-plot N1 vs Dm 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study

TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study 5/08/05 Adam/Paul vs. Nikolay 30 fb-1 (LHC 1 Yr) Nevent(3t+1j+Emiss) = (NcountOS+NcountLS)/ 2 NOS-NLS Fig. 1a Fig. 1b Mean+3s Plots from 12/22/04 DM=12.38 GeV <M(tt)> 74 events/30 fb-1 for DM=12.38 GeV LS OS OS-LS No detector simulation ATLFAST simulation  L dt = 120 fb-1 Similar Shape!!! 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study

TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study Update OS-LS(Dm)=N1xG (Dm)+N2xLS(Dm) 05/07/05 05/13/05 Study #3c Study #4 Systematic shift? 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study

Preliminary Result (1 of 2) 06/03/05 Preliminary Result (1 of 2) 1) ATLFAST simulation returns tau-jet and generic-jet objects smeared by detector resolutions. 2) Use random number generators to simulate 50% efficiency for tau jets (et = 50%) 1% (or 3%) fake rate for generic jets 3) For each events a) Tau jet identified as tau b) Tau jet identified as jet c) Generic jet identified as tau d) Generic jet identified as jet 4) We select events if “tau’s” in a) and c) pass our kinematical cuts for taus (40, 40 and 20 GeV): PT(1st t)vis > 40, PT(2nd t)vis > 40, PT(3rd t)vis > 20 PT(J1)+ETmiss > 400 GeV |h| < 2.5 for tau’s 5) Plot OS, LS, OS-LS mass distributions 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study

Preliminary Result (2 of 2) 06/03/05 Preliminary Result (2 of 2) DM = 14.5 GeV LS OS OS-LS  L dt = 145 fb-1 et = 50% et = 50% 1% fake rate 3% fake rate ~150 x3 increase in LS because of 3% fake rate? ~50 But small change in height and wider width in OS-LS 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study

TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study 06/17/05 et = 100% fake = 0% 45.6 0.5, s =13.4 50.30.4, s =15.0 49.10.5, s =13.4 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study

TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study 06/17/05 et = 50% fake = 0%-5% x Fig.1a Fig.1c 0% 3% 45.8 1.4, s =12.5 44.50.8, s =12.4 Fig.1b Fig.1d 1% 5% 43.91.2, s =14.3 45.31.0, s =13.9 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study

TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study 06/17/05 et = 50% fake = 0%-5% Fig.2a Fig.2c 0% 3% Why different? 46.71.5, s =14.6 @ et = 50% 50.00.7, s =14.2 (50.30.4, s =15.0 @ et = 100%) ? Systematically increasing … Fig.2b Fig.2d 1% 5% 49.30.7, s =12.8 51.00.5, s =14.8 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study

TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study 06/21-22/05 “Peak” Investigation Assume an event with X real taus (t1, t2, … tX), and Y jets (j1, … jY). Throw random numbers to simulate et = 50% (or 100%) and fake = 1% (or 3%, 5%). Re-label X+Y objects. For example, t1, t2, t3(j), … tX, and j1, … j6(t), ... jY, where t3(j) means a jet object misidentified as tau with the third leading ET. j6(t) means a tau object misidentified as jet with the 6th leading ET. Apply our event selection cuts – 3 taus + 1 jet + MET Calculate two di-tau masses (M13 and M23), and classify Case a) Both taus are real Case b) One real and one fake Case c) Both taus are fakes 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study http://www.phys.uregina.ca/tryKolev/fakePeak/fakePeakInvestigation.htm

TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study 06/21-22/05 et = 100% fake = 1% DM = 15.4 GeV and 210 fb-1 a) c) NICE cancellation! in b) and c). b) a) Both taus are real. b) One real and one fake c) Both taus are fakes 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study http://www.phys.uregina.ca/tryKolev/fakePeak/fakePeakInvestigation.htm

TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study 06/21-22/05 et = 100% fake = 3% DM = 15.4 GeV and 210 fb-1 a) c) NICE cancellation! in b) and c). What caused this peak in LS?? b) a) Both taus are real. b) One real and one fake c) Both taus are fakes 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study http://www.phys.uregina.ca/tryKolev/fakePeak/fakePeakInvestigation.htm

TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study 06/21-22/05 et = 100% fake = 0-5% DM = 15.4 GeV and 210 fb-1 a) a) 50.30.40, s =15.0 51.60.29, s =15.7 fake = 0% fake = 3% Peaks are systematically shifting … a) a) 50.90.35, s =15.4 51.80.27, s =16.2 fake = 1% fake = 5% 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study http://www.phys.uregina.ca/tryKolev/fakePeak/fakePeakInvestigation.htm

TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study 06/21-22/05 et = 50-100% fake = 0-5% 210 fb-1 Not good fitting 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study

TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study Model for our study Hand-picked lines e=efficiency; f = fake rate 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study

TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study DM = 5.7 GeV and 210 fb-1 et = 100% fake = 0% DM = 15.4 GeV and 210 fb-1 06/22/05 et = 50% fake = 0, 1, 3, 5% 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study http://www.phys.uregina.ca/tryKolev/fakePeak/fakePeakInvestigation.htm

TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study Ztt ISAJET (06/23/05) ISAJET+ATLFAST (06/19/05) Mean=57.1 RMS=17.4 (31%) Mean=68.3 RMS=28.2 (41%) 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study

TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study 06/28/05 Ztt Mean=57.2 RMS=17.4 (31%) Mean=63.3 RMS=16.0 (?%) NAtlfast/NIsajet=83% NAtlfast/NIsajet=57% Why there is no low-mass tail on ATLFAST? 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study

TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study 07/14/05 fake = 0.5% 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study

TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study 07/14/05 Based on ISAJET (no detector simulation) Three “true” taus are selected like in the analysis Di-tau mass distribution in OS, LS, and OS-LS. a) (a) What is meant by “Only PURE” What is meant by “only ONE PURE”? 2018/11/28 TAMU/Regina LHC Monte Carlo Study