Lepton Fakes in ~ 840 /nb 26 August 2010. Intro & Selections Reference current ttbar selections – New: Mt < 25 Electrons: endcap alignment correction.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Current limits (95% C.L.): LEP direct searches m H > GeV Global fit to precision EW data (excludes direct search results) m H < 157 GeV Latest Tevatron.
Advertisements

Measurement of the inclusive jet cross section in p+p collisions at E CM =200 GeV Mike Miller (MIT) For the STAR collaboration.
Recent Results on the Possibility of Observing a Standard Model Higgs Boson Decaying to WW (*) Majid Hashemi University of Antwerp, Belgium.
ESTIMATING THE FAKE LEPTON BACKGROUND IN A SEARCH FOR PAIR PRODUCED STOPS AT CMS David Kolchmeyer Advisor: Alberto Graziano.
1 previously, when I calculated event selection efficiencies, I defined efficiencies as the following: efficiency in electron channel = (total number of.
The Matrix Method Data-driven method of estimating the W→lv and QCD multijet contributions to sample S’.
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
1 introduction sample: W’  tb  Wbb  eνbb/μνbb generator: PYTHIA five samples with W’ mass: 300GeV, 500GeV, 1000GeV, 1500GeV, 2000GeV number of events.
Real Time 2010Monika Wielers (RAL)1 ATLAS e/  /  /jet/E T miss High Level Trigger Algorithms Performance with first LHC collisions Monika Wielers (RAL)
Single-Top Cross Section Measurements at ATLAS Patrick Ryan (Michigan State University) Introduction to Single-Top The measurement.
Data-based background predictions using forward events Victor Pavlunin and David Stuart University of California Santa Barbara July 10, 2008.
Status: WW,ZZ->H->  Catalin, Kevin, Tony, Dovid.
Tau Jet Identification in Charged Higgs Search Monoranjan Guchait TIFR, Mumbai India-CMS collaboration meeting th March,2009 University of Delhi.
MCP checks for the H-4l mass. Outline and work program The problems: – Higgs mass difference from the  – Possible single resonant peak mass shift (with.
Data results for inclusive all-hadronic (RA  with 318 nb -1 SUSY Hadronic/GMSB Meeting [C. Rogan et al.] Data Plots Towards.
H → ZZ →  A promising new channel for high Higgs mass Sara Bolognesi – Torino INFN and University Higgs meeting 23 Sept – CMS Week.
A measurement of the Ratio of Tree over Two Jet Cross Sections with CMS at 7TeV P.Kokkas, I.Papadopoulos, C.Fountas, I.Evangelou, N.Manthos University.
Experience with muons in analysis: W’ search Carmen Diez Pardos CIEMAT Madrid Muon Barrel Workshop Physics sesion 25/02/
Lepton efficiency & fake rate Yousuke Kataoka University of Tokyo Content definitions of leptons p2 efficiency and fake rate for SU3 ( ) p3, p4.
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.
LHC France 2013, 3 rd April ATLAS results on inclusive top quark pair production cross section in dilepton channel Frédéric Derue, LPNHE Paris Rencontres.
Status of Muon Trigger Efficiency Measurement for ICHEP Benedikt Hegner, Benjamin Klein, Yvonne Küssel, Patricia Lobelle, Markus Marienfeld, Rahmat Rahmat,
Study of L1 and HLT efficiency in VBTF Monika Jindal (Panjab University, Chandigarh) Jasbir Singh (panjab University, Chandigarh), Kajari Mazumdar (TIFR,
India-CMS meeting, BARC 30 th July, MonoPhoton Study Umberto Berzano, Satyaki Bhattacharya, Sandhya Jain Yurii Maravin, Tia Miceli, Albert de Roeck,
QCD and Top backgrounds in W+jets and Rjets Alessandro Tricoli (CERN) on behalf of W+jets and Rjets groups 3 rd May 2013 W+jets and Rjets EB Meeting.
María Cepeda (CIEMAT, Madrid) Valencia, II CPAN days 1.
1 Silke Duensing DØ Analysis Status NIKHEF Annual Scientific Meeting Analysing first D0 data  Real Data with:  Jets  Missing Et  Electrons 
Timescale The nominal dates for SM approvals for EPS are June 30 and July 7 for the Plenary meetings, with availability of a draft supporting note to the.
Status of RPC trigger analysis and Muon Trigger efficiencies for W-> μν study By Archana Sharma, Suman B. Beri Panjab University Chandigarh India-CMS Meeting.
Update on H→WW→2μ2ν Update on H→WW→2μ2ν Oct. 8, 2010 IFCA – U. Oviedo.
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.
W/Z Plan For Winter Conferences Tom Diehl Saclay 12/2001.
Update : Ratio of Three over Two Jet Cross Sections P.Kokkas, I.Papadopoulos, C.Fountas, I.Evangelou, N.Manthos University of Ioannina, Greece Senior Editor.
Tracey BerryTAPM Meeting June 25 th Triggers Tracey Berry Royal Holloway.
Slides for EB3. Left Problems from EB2 1. Why muon triggers are not used in e  channel? 2. Add backgrounds estimation for signal search region 3. Add.
Update on WH to 3 lepton Analysis And Electron Trigger Efficiencies with Tag And Probe Nishu 1, Suman B. Beri 1, Guillelmo Gomez Ceballos 2 1 Panjab University,
5/28/2002UTA group meeting1 An update of top to stop analysis How to estimate W->e cross section? Why the w to e cross section I used is so big? Next Choose.
Early LHC data preparations for SUSY searches at CMS Didar Dobur University of Florida Representing the CMS Collaboration ICHEP July 2010, Paris.
Search for High-Mass Resonances in e + e - Jia Liu Madelyne Greene, Lana Muniz, Jane Nachtman Goal for the summer Searching for new particle Z’ --- a massive.
EM resolutions from low to high energy Jan Stark, LPSC Grenoble CAT Force meeting, May 13 th, 2003.
W/Z+Jets production studies in ATLAS
HG 5: Trigger Study for ttH, H→bb Catrin Bernius (UCL) CPPM, Genova, Glasgow, RAL, RHUL, UCL some outline.
Kinematics of Top Decays in the Dilepton and the Lepton + Jets channels: Probing the Top Mass University of Athens - Physics Department Section of Nuclear.
10 January 2008Neil Collins - University of Birmingham 1 Tau Trigger Performance Neil Collins ATLAS UK Physics Meeting Thursday 10 th January 2008.
Mark OwenManchester Christmas Meeting Jan Search for h ->  with Muons at D  Mark Owen Manchester HEP Group Meeting January 2006 Outline: –Introduction.
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.
 reconstruction and identification in CMS A.Nikitenko, Imperial College. LHC Days in Split 1.
Measuring the t-tbar Cross-Section in the Dilepton Channel at CDF* J. Incandela for C. Mills Jan. 17, 2008 DOE Site Visit UC Santa Barbara * PhD Thesis.
Viktor Veszpremi Purdue University, CDF Collaboration Tev4LHC Workshop, Oct , Fermilab ZH->vvbb results from CDF.
E. Soldatov Tight photon efficiency study using FSR photons from Z  ll  decays E.Yu.Soldatov* *National Research Nuclear University “MEPhI”
Search for Pair Produced Stops Decaying to a Dileptonic Final State at CMS David Kolchmeyer.
H->WW->lνlν Analysis - Improvements and results - - Data and MC - Higgs Working group meeting, 6 January 2011 Magda Chełstowska & Rosemarie Aben.
QCD estimate with the matrix method Alexander D. with the help of many…
XLIX International Winter Meeting on Nuclear Physics January 2011 Bormio, Italy G. Cattani, on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of.
Data Driven study for Same Sign Dileptons July 31 st 2009, “CMS SUSY Leptonic Meeting” 1 Sanjay Padhi.
Slide 1 Status Report. Slide 2 QCD and W+jets Background Estimation Using Fake Rate Method Norbert Neumeister, Hwidong Yoo Purdue University EXO non-hadronic.
ATLAS results on inclusive top quark pair
Some introduction Cosmics events can produce energetic jets and missing energy. They need to be discriminated from collision events with true MET and jets.
Top physics during ATLAS commissioning
Report from SUSY working group
Effect of t42 algorithm on jets
Diphoton+MET: Update on Plans and Progress
Early EWK/top measurements at the LHC
Bernard Andrieu (LPNHE,Paris)
Venkat Kaushik, Jae Yu University of Texas at Arlington
Summary of FMS/Jet Meetings
Quarkonium production, offline monitoring, alignment & calibration
Susan Burke, University of Arizona
Presentation transcript:

Lepton Fakes in ~ 840 /nb 26 August 2010

Intro & Selections Reference current ttbar selections – New: Mt < 25 Electrons: endcap alignment correction for data, no Δη Data & Monte Carlo samples listed at the end 2

W contribution to QCD Fake Rates We want to measure the rate of fake leptons from QCD in data Leptonic W decays will contribute to some extent – We have so far required low MET ( tcmet < 20 GeV ) to reduce the contribution from W – We now require low transverse mass also ( Mt < 25 ) What effect does the presence of W have on the fake rate? 3

Electron Fake Rates in Monte Carlo QCD_Pt30 Only QCD_Pt30 + Weν V1 Fake RateV3 Fake RateV2 Fake Rate Presence of W does not dominate Fake Rate - W contribution introduces some bias - QCD prevails 4 ( No cuts on MET or Mt )

Muon Fake Rates in Monte Carlo W contribution suppressed by requiring low MET and Mt - We have been requiring tcmet < 20, we now require Mt < 25 also - W domination delayed by ~10 GeV in Pt - underlying QCD Fake Rate unaffected InclusiveMu15 + Wmunu - tcmet< 20 AND Mt < 25 InclusiveMu15 - tcmet< 20 AND Mt < 25 5 Fake Rate Dominated by W

Muon Fake Rates – Comparison of Data and Monte Carlo W evident in Data also - Good data / MC agreement - W starts to dominate above ~ 35 GeV How do we estimate the fake rate for Pt > 35 where W is irreducible? - Simply use the fake rate from the GeV Pt bin for Pt > 35 GeV - QCD background peaks at low Pt and QCD FR is somewhat flat - Alternatively, use fake rate from b tagged jets Data ( HLT_Mu9 AND 15 GeV Offline Jet ) MC InclusiveMu15 + Wmunu MC InclusiveMu15 Luminosity ~ 840 / nb 6

Fake Rates - Jet vs. Lepton Triggered Lepton fake rates have so far been determined from jet triggered ( HLT_Jet15U ) samples – Then require offline lepton away from jet trigger Jet triggers are now heavily prescaled – HLT_Jet15U prescale is now 200 ( 4.1 v3 at 3.5x10 30 ) Alternatively, can derive fake rates from lepton triggered samples ( Mu9, Ele10_LW_L1R ) – Then apply threshold to offline jet away from lepton Lepton & Jet triggers should give the same result – Lepton triggers offer more statistics 7

Electron Fake Rates in Data Comparison of Jet & Lepton Triggers Luminosity ~ 840 / nb HLT_Jet15U HLT_Ele10_LW_L1RAND 15 GeV Offline Jet Jet & Lepton Triggered Fake Rates are Comparable - Lepton Triggered samples offer higher statistics V1 Fake RateV3 Fake RateV2 Fake Rate 8

Muon Fake Rates in Data Comparison of Jet & Lepton Triggers Luminosity ~ 840 / nb HLT_Jet15U HLT_Mu9 AND 15 GeV Offline Jet Jet & Lepton Triggered Fake Rates Agree Before Run Difference after run not yet understood - Lepton triggered samples offer higher statistics 9 Runs before All Runs

Jet Threshold Dependence of Lepton Fake Rates Systematic errors are estimated by measuring the dependence of the fake rate on the jet threshold Comparison of lepton triggered fake rates with different offline jet pt thresholds are shown on the following slides 10

Muon Fake Rates in Data Dependence on Jet Threshold Luminosity ~ 840 / nb Systematics ~ 50% Isolation relaxed ( 0.15 to 0.40 ) in the muon fake rate denominator 11 HLT_Mu9 5 GeV 15 GeV 30 GeV 50 GeV

Electron Fake Rates in Data Dependence on Jet Threshold Luminosity ~ 840 / nb 12 HLT_Ele10_LW_L1R 5 GeV 15 GeV 30 GeV 50 GeV Systematics ~ 50% V2 fake rate ( which does not relax isolation) shows least dependence on jet threshold V1 Fake RateV3 Fake RateV2 Fake Rate

Summary Leptons from W decay pollute QCD fake rates – Results in tolerable bias for electrons – Muon fake rate is dominated by W above ~ 35 GeV in spite of requiring low MET and Mt. Solution: Extend fake rate from lower Pt or require b tagged jets Fake rates derived from lepton triggers offer more statistics than those from jet triggers Jet Threshold – Systematics ~ 50% 13

Samples /InclusiveMu15/Spring10-START3X_V26_S09-v1/GEN-SIM-RECO /QCD_Pt30/Spring10-START3X_V26_S09-v1/GEN-SIM-RECO /Wenu/Spring10-START3X_V26_S09-v1/GEN-SIM-RECO /Wmunu/Spring10-START3X_V26_S09-v1/GEN-SIM-RECO /MinimumBias/Commissioning10-SD_EG-Jun14thSkim_v1/RECO /EG/Run2010A-Jun14thReReco_v1/RECO /EG/Run2010A-Jul16thReReco-v2/RECO /EG/Run2010A-PromptReco-v4/RECO /MinimumBias/Commissioning10-SD_Mu-Jun14thSkim_v1/RECO /Mu/Run2010A-Jun14thReReco_v1/RECO /Mu/Run2010A-Jul16thReReco-v1/RECO /Mu/Run2010A-PromptReco-v4/RECO /MinimumBias/Commissioning10-SD_JetMETTau-Jun14thSkim_v1/RECO /JetMETTau/Run2010A-Jun14thReReco_v2/RECO /JetMETTau/Run2010A-Jul16thReReco-v1/RECO /JetMETTau/Run2010A-PromptReco-v4/RECO 14

Backup Slides 15

Runs < Runs > Runs < Runs > Runs < Runs > Runs < Run Dependence of Muon Fake Rate All RunsRuns > HLT_15u HLT_Mu9 AND 15 GeV Offline Jet Discrepancy between Jet & Lepton triggered FR for runs> not understood

Difference between Jet15U and Muon triggers at high PT? This was also seen earlier in the summer The most likely explanation was that of a run dependence – Jet15U samples the very earliest runs – Muon triggers are uniform We need to verify this again by making the same plots as the previous page but broken up in run periods Slide from this summer are in backup (as a reminder of what we had then) 17

Slide circulated in an emai message by Claudio on 10 July

Slide circulated in an emai message by Claudio on 10 July

Slide circulated in an emai message by Claudio on 10 July

Electron Fake Rates in Monte Carlo QCD_Pt30 Only Weν Only QCD_Pt30 + Weν Numerator & Denominator Pt distributions NumV2 DenV1 DenV3 Den Fake Rates QCD_Pt30 Only QCD_Pt30 + Weν V1 Fake RateV3 Fake RateV2 Fake Rate Presence of W does not dominate Fake Rate at high Pt 21

Muon Fake Rates in Monte Carlo W dominates Fake Rate above ~ 25 GeV InclusiveMu15 + Wmunu InclusiveMu15 Wmunu Fake RateDenominatorNumerator 22

Muon Fake Rates – Comparison of Data and Monte Carlo W evident in Data also - Good agreement between data and Monte Carlo - W starts to dominate above ~ 35 GeV Data ( HLT_Mu9 AND 15 GeV Offline Jet ) InclusiveMu15 + Wmunu InclusiveMu15 Wmunu Luminosity ~ 840 / nb Fake RateDenominatorNumerator W Supression: -tcmet< 20 - Mt < 25 23

Muon Fake Rates in Data Dependence on Muon Trigger Luminosity ~ 840 / nb Fake Rate stable for different Muon triggers W Supression: -tcmet< 20 - Mt < 25 24

Electron Fake Rates in Data Comparison of 10 & 15 GeV Lepton Triggers Luminosity ~ 840 / nb HLT_Ele10_LW_L1R HLT_Ele15_LW_L1R W Supression: tcmet< 20, Mt < 25 V1 Fake RateV3 Fake RateV2 Fake Rate 25 Electron 10 & 15 triggers are comparable

Electron Fake Rates in Data Comparison of 10 GeV Lepton Triggers Luminosity ~ 840 / nb HLT_Ele10_LW_L1R HLT_Ele10_SW_L1R HLT_Ele10_LW_EleId_L1R HLT_Ele10_SW_EleId_L1R W Supression: tcmet< 20, Mt < 25 V1 Fake RateV3 Fake RateV2 Fake Rate 26 Trigger ID increases V1 & V2 Fake Rates Trigger ID cancels out in V3. V1 & V2 have no offline ID. Trigger ID decreases the denominator, increasing the Fake Rate

Electron Fake Rates in Data Comparison of 15 GeV Lepton Triggers Luminosity ~ 840 / nb HLT_Ele15_LW_L1R HLT_Ele15_SW_L1R HLT_Ele15_SW_EleId_L1R HLT_Ele15_LW_CaloEleId_L1R W Supression: tcmet< 20, Mt < 25 V1 Fake RateV3 Fake RateV2 Fake Rate 27 Trigger ID increases V1 & V2 Fake Rates

Electron Selections ttbar: Tight Electron Selections – Pt > 10 – SC Et > 10 – |η| < 2.5 – ECAL Seeded – Spike Removal – VBTF 90 ID Data corrected for Endcap alignment dEta cut removed – d0 < 400 – Iso< 0.15 – No muon with dR of 0.10 – Conversion Rejection Hit Pattern Dist < 002 Dcottheta< 002 Loose Electron Selections – d0 removed for V1, V2, V3 – V1: V2 AND V3 – V2: Electron ID removed – V3: Isolation relaxed to