 gg→H for different MCs: uncertainties due to jet veto G. Davatz, ETH Zurich.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Minimum bias and the underlying event: towards the LHC I.Dawson, C.Buttar and A.Moraes University of Sheffield Physics at LHC - Prague July , 2003.
Advertisements

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 properties workshop 11/11/05 Some theoretical issues regarding Method 2 J. Huston Michigan State University.
Single-Top Cross Section Measurements at ATLAS Patrick Ryan (Michigan State University) Introduction to Single-Top The measurement.
A Comparison of Three-jet Events in p Collisions to Predictions from a NLO QCD Calculation Sally Seidel QCD’04 July 2004.
Ursula Bassler, LPNHE-Paris, RUN II MC workshop 1 Monte Carlo Tuning: The HERA Experience Monte Carlo Models for DIS events Description of inclusive hadronic.
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.
Collider Physics and QCD Phenomenology Mike Seymour (based at CERN) HERWIG Monte Carlo event generator –Current version ~ frozen (bug fixes and minor new.
H → ZZ →  A promising new channel for high Higgs mass Sara Bolognesi – Torino INFN and University Higgs meeting 23 Sept – CMS Week.
1 A Preliminary Model Independent Study of the Reaction pp  qqWW  qq ℓ qq at CMS  Gianluca CERMINARA (SUMMER STUDENT)  MUON group.
2012 Tel Aviv, October 15, 2012 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 1 Rick Field University of Florida Outline of Talk CMS at the LHC CDF Run 2 
Olivier RavatLes Houches/June 3rd Higgs associated production at LHC : Thecase Olivier Ravat, Morgan Lethuillier IPN Lyon Les Houches 2003 : Physics.
AcerMC and ISR/FSR systematics at ATLAS Liza Mijovic, Borut Kersevan Jozef Stefan Inst. Univ. of Ljubljana ATLAS approach: Generator level studies Parameters.
W + /W - and l + /l - A Means to investigate PDFs T. Schörner-Sadenius, G. Steinbrück Hamburg University HERA-LHC Workshop, CERN, October 2004.
Run 2 Monte-Carlo Workshop April 20, 2001 Rick Field - Florida/CDFPage 1 The Underlying Event in Hard Scattering Processes  The underlying event in a.
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.
Study of Direct Photon Pair Production in Hadronic Collisions at √s=14 TeV (Preliminary Results) Sushil Singh Chauhan Department of Physics & Astrophysics.
Study of Standard Model Backgrounds for SUSY search with ATLAS detector Takayuki Sasaki, University of Tokyo.
Workshop on Early LHC Physics May 6, 2009 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 1 Workshop on Early Physics Opportunities at the LHC Rick Field University of.
Higgs Reach Through VBF with ATLAS Bruce Mellado University of Wisconsin-Madison Recontres de Moriond 2004 QCD and High Energy Hadronic Interactions.
SM and Higgs WG (II) “Experimental view” on subjects of sub-groups A.Nikitenko IC, London Les Houches 12 th May 2005.
S. MuanzaSimulation Meeting 16 September 2005 Relative Tuning of the Pythia Underlying Event for Recent PDFs OUTLINE I.Introduction and Methodology II.Tools.
Itamar Roth, Ehud Duchovni Group meeting 19/01/15 1.
1 TOP MASS MEASUREMENT WITH ATLAS A.-I. Etienvre, for the ATLAS Collaboration.
St. Andrews, Scotland August 22, 2011 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage Rick Field University of Florida Outline  Do we need a.
High P T Inclusive Jets Study High P T Inclusive Jets Study Manuk Zubin Mehta, Prof. Manjit kaur Panjab University, Chandigarh India CMS Meeting March,
1 Update on tt-bar signal and background simulation Stan Bentvelsen.
The Underlying Event in Jet Physics at TeV Colliders Arthur M. Moraes University of Glasgow PPE – ATLAS IOP HEPP Conference - Dublin, 21 st – 23 rd March.
PIC 2011, Vancouver August 29, 2011 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 1 Physics in Collision Rick Field University of Florida Outline  Examine.
1 Correcting LO W  (Z  ) Cross Sections to NLO Al Goshaw Duke University December 1, 2010.
Fermilab Energy Scaling Workshop April 28, 2009 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 1 1 st Workshop on Energy Scaling in Hadron-Hadron Collisions Rick Field.
24/08/2009 LOMONOSOV09, MSU, Moscow 1 Study of jet transverse structure with CMS experiment at 10 TeV Natalia Ilina (ITEP, Moscow) for the CMS collaboration.
Jet Studies at CDF Anwar Ahmad Bhatti The Rockefeller University CDF Collaboration DIS03 St. Petersburg Russia April 24,2003 Inclusive Jet Cross Section.
CDF Paper Seminar Fermilab - March 11, 2010 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 1 Sorry to be so slow!! Studying the “Underlying Event” at CDF CDF Run 2 “Leading.
ATLAS Higgs Search Strategy and Sources of Systematic Uncertainty Jae Yu For the ATLAS Collaboration 23 June, 2010.
Photon and Jet Physics at CDF Jay R. Dittmann Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (For the CDF Collaboration) 31 st International Conference on High.
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.
Kinematics of Top Decays in the Dilepton and the Lepton + Jets channels: Probing the Top Mass University of Athens - Physics Department Section of Nuclear.
Search for a Standard Model Higgs Boson in the Diphoton Final State at the CDF Detector Karen Bland [ ] Department of Physics,
ICHEP 2012 Melbourne, July 5, 2012 Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMSPage 1 ICHEP 2012 Rick Field University of Florida Outline of Talk CMS at the LHC CDF Run.
TeV4LHC - Fermilab October 20, 2005 Rick Field - Florida/CDFPage 1 TeV4LHC Workshop Rick Field University of Florida CDF Run 2 Talk #1.
Inclusive jet photoproduction at HERA B.Andrieu (LPNHE, Paris) On behalf of the collaboration Outline: Introduction & motivation QCD calculations and Monte.
Status of NLOjet++ for dijet angular distributions
Energy Dependence of the UE
Measurement of SM V+gamma by ATLAS
Studies of prompt photon identification and 0 isolation in first p-p collisions at √s=10 TeV May 20, 2009 Meeting Frascati Raphaëlle Ichou.
NIKHEF / Universiteit van Amsterdam
MB&UE Working Group Meeting UE Lessons Learned & What’s Next
PHZ 6358 Fall 2011 The Modeling of the Underlying Event Rick Field
The “Underlying Event” in Run 2 (CDF)
MB&UE Working Group Meeting CMS UE Data and the New Tune Z1
Hard Core Protons soft-physics at hadron colliders
Predicting “Min-Bias” and the “Underlying Event” at the LHC
Monte-Carlo Generators for CMS
Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS
“Min-Bias” and the “Underlying Event” in Run 2 at CDF and the LHC
Status of NLOjet++ for dijet angular distributions
XXXIV International Meeting on Fundamental Physics
CDF Run 2 Monte-Carlo Tunes
Search for Narrow Resonance Decaying to Muon Pairs in 2.3 fb-1
International Symposium on Multiparticle Dynamics
“Min-Bias” & “Underlying Event” at the Tevatron and the LHC
Multiple Parton Interactions and the Underlying Event
The “Underlying Event” CDF-LHC Comparisons
“Min-Bias” and the “Underlying Event”
The Underlying Event in Hard Scattering Processes
PYTHIA 6.2 “Tunes” for Run II
Workshop on Early Physics Opportunities at the LHC
Measurement of b-jet Shapes at CDF
Rick Field – Florida/CDF/CMS
Presentation transcript:

 gg→H for different MCs: uncertainties due to jet veto G. Davatz, ETH Zurich

2 gg→H→WW→l l  −Higgs discovery channel between 2M W and 2M Z −Dominant background: nonresonant WW, ttbar and Wtb jet veto crucial to reduce top-background → get uncertainty of jet veto for different Monte Carlos Motivation

3 MCs compared : PYTHIA 6.319, HERWIG ME correction*, MCatNLO 2.31 and CASCADE −NO underlying events −M(Higgs) = 165 GeV, M(top) =175 GeV −CASCADE (CCFM hadron level MC) with PYTHIA final state parton shower − HERWIG: gg → H : no hard ME Corrections, here:preliminary version with ME corrections used (exact ) PYTHIA, MCatNLO : with ME Corrections (PYTHIA: m(top)→ ∞, MCatNLO exact ) pdfMCatNLO: CTEQ 5M1 PYTHIA, HERWIG : CTEQ 5L CTEQ5M1 (NLO) CTEQ5L (LO)  s (Mz)=0.118  QCD 4 =  QCD 5 =  s (Mz)=0.127  QCD 4 =  QCD 5 =  QCD PYTHIA: MSTP(3)=2 (  QCD =  QCD of pdf) HERWIG: QCDLAM=0.18 MC at NLO: LAMDAFIVE=0.226 CASCADE MSTP(3)=2 * provided by G. Corcella (see Phys.Lett.B 590 (2004) )

4 p T Higgs varies for different MCs old Pythia showering Herwig without ME correction High pt: Pythia + Herwig+ME ≈ same Low pt: Herwig+ME and MCatNLO ≈ same Low pt: different shape for Pythia

5 p T Higgs varies for different MCs new (from now on new showering for Pythia used) Pythia now much more like Herwig and MCatNLO in low pt

6 for this study: Cone algorithm p T jet>20 GeV, |  jet<4,5, R=0.5, p T seed>1 GeV p T Higgs balanced by one or more jets → similar but not identical pt spectrum Apply jet veto of 30 GeV → get the efficiency p T Higgs versus jet p T

7 → efficiency spread ≈ 10% Differences vary over the p T spectrum: Integrated efficiency over whole p T spectrum and up to a p T Higgs of 80 GeV: Efficiency numbers of the jet veto (without CASCADE up to 80 GeV 1%)  total  up to 80 GeV PYTHIA HERWIG MCatNLO CASCADE

8 gg→H→WW→l l  selection (GD et al jhep05(2004)009 ) shows: small p T Higgs region most important gg→H→WW→l l selection with all cuts

9 → efficiency spread < 1% Integrated efficiency over whole p T spectrum and up to a p T Higgs of 80 GeV: Efficiency numbers of the jet veto for MCatNLO, different scales  total  up to 80 GeV  fac,ren = M H /  fac,ren = M H  fac,ren = 2 M H

10 p T Higgs spectrum MCatNLO for different scales

11 In low p T region, HERWIG, MCatNLO and PYTHIA are now very similar The total efficiencies for HERWIG, MCatNLO, PYTHIA and CASCADE vary around 10% In the region of interest for the gg→H→WW→l l  signal selection (up to p T H 80 GeV), the difference for HERWIG, MCatNLO and PYTHIA are smaller than 2% ! If we smear the E T of the jet to get realistic CMS efficiency for jet veto with jet resolution:  E T / E T = 118% / sqrt(E T ) + 7%, the difference in the efficiencies between smeared and not smeared case is smaller than 1% Results

12 Including higher order corrections (by reweighting) leads to about same efficiency uncertainty as without reweighting Including UE, the difference in the efficiency between PYTHIA with and without UE is smaller than 1% (tested CDF tune A and ATLAS tune) The uncertainty of the efficiency for different scales in MCatNLO is lower than 1% Results with CASCADE have to be treated carefully Ongoing work Staying with ATLAS tune, change p T cut for UE within 3  of fit error as proposed by Paolo Bartalini … Results

13 backup

14 Efficiency after smearing (pythia, mcatnlo, herwig without ME correction)

15   smeared PYTHIA 0.61 HERWIG MCatNLO Efficiency after smearing Get realistic CMS efficiency for jet veto with smeared Jet Et: jet resolution:  E T / E T = 118% / sqrt(E T ) + 7% p T H < 80 GeV   smeared PYTHIA 0.72 HERWIG 0.70 MCatNLO 0.69

16 Efficiency after smearing Smearing: tendency to lower efficiency, as can be expected: there are more jets at low pt than high pt → smearing: more jets which had pt below 30 GeV now have pt above 30 GeV than vice versa → jet veto should affect more events after smearing but: effect very small

17 Including Underlying events in Pythia → Estimate uncertainty for UE according to the CDF and ATLAS tunings for PYTHIA

18 Comments CDF – Tune A (PYTHIA6.206) PYTHIA6.214 – Tuned (ATLAS) Generated processes (QCD + low-pT) Non-diffractive inelastic + double diffraction (MSEL=0, ISUB 94 and 95) Non-diffractive + double diffraction (MSEL=0, ISUB 94 and 95) p.d.f. CTEQ 5L (MSTP(51)=7) CTEQ 5L (MSTP(51)=7) Multiple interactions models MSTP(81) = 1 MSTP(82) = 4 MSTP(81) = 1 MSTP(82) = 4 pT min PARP(82) = 2.0 PARP(89) = 1.8 TeV PARP(90) = 0.25 PARP(82) = 1.8 PARP(89) = 1 TeV PARP(90) = 0.16 Core radius 40% of the hadron radius (PARP(84) = 0.4) 50% of the hadron radius (PARP(84) = 0.5) Gluon production mechanism PARP(85) = 0.9 PARP(86) = 0.95 PARP(85) = 0.33 PARP(86) = 0.66 α s and K-factors MSTP(2) = 1 MSTP(33) = 0 MSTP(2) = 1 MSTP(33) = 0 Regulating initial state radiation PARP(67) = 4 PARP(67) = 1 Current PYTHIA tunings (used in CMS production) R. Field; CDF UE tuning method

19 CDF and ATLAS tuning ≈ same  PYTHIA default and tuned PYTHIA: difference < 1 % PYTHIA with and without UE: difference < 1% ATLAS Tune, CDF Tune A, PYTHIA defaultATLAS Tune, CDF Tune A, PYTHIA no UE CDF Tune A, PYTHIA default, PYTHIA no UE Total  for pt H < 80 GeV CDF tune A ATLAS tune PYTHIA default PYTHIA no UE Jet veto efficiency with underlying events (PYTHIA)

20 Including HO corrections

21 gg→H→WW→l l : pt Higgs balanced by pt jets cannot use const. K-factor (because of jet veto) Reweight Pythia with effective pt-dependent K-factors Very promising results! (for M H =165 GeV, 5  with already 0.4 fb -1 ) Reweighting procedure (GD et al. jhep05(2004)009) Simple method to include HO QCD corrections

22   reweighted Pythia Herwig MCatNLO Results: Integrated efficiency for PYTHIA, HERWIG and MCatNLO and after reweighting

23 Analyse of Cascade efficiency shape

24 Efficiency of jet veto with CASCADE 2 1 Jet veto at 30 GeV

25 1. Efficiency at p T Higgs = 0 GeV Why is the efficiency not 1 at p T Higgs = 0 GeV ? Possible answer: p T Higgs balanced by more than 1 jet. Σ p T jets = 0 (≈ p T Higgs), but at least one jet has a p T higher than 30 GeV → jet veto removes event 30 Indeed! At very low p T Higgs: CASCADE has more events with jets and the jets are harder than in other MCs

26 2. Efficiency for CASCADE between p T Higgs 0 and 30 GeV p T Higgs spectrum for max jet pt > 30 GeV: more events at low p T Higgs with a max jet pt > 30 GeV in CASCADE than in the other MCs those events will be removed → jet veto for CASCADE more efficient max jet pt > 30 GeV, p T Higgs <30 GeV max jet pt > 30 GeV

27 Efficiency for the jet veto with Herwig without ME correction

28  PYTHIA0.62 HERWIG0.63 MCatNLO0.59 → efficiency spread < 5% Differences vary over the pt spectrum: eg : pt H < 20 GeV: differences very small pt H ≈ 50 GeV : difference around 30% Integrated efficiency over whole pt spectrum: Efficiency for the jet veto

29 Herwig with ME correction

30 if hard ME corrections included *→ more jets with high pt →total  the same → less jets with low pt → overall efficiency ≈ 0.55 (10% smaller than for HERWIG 6.505) * This preliminary HERWIG + hard ME version was provided by G. Corcella (see Phys.Lett.B 590 (2004) ) HERWIG + ME Corrections

31 High pt: Pythia + Herwig ≈ same Pythia + Herwig: Similar rapidity shape also for pt Higgs>100 GeV HERWIG + ME Corrections

32 Different pt Higgs regions with Herwig without ME correction

33 B) 30 GeV ≤ pt Higgs <100 GeV A) pt Higgs < 30 GeV C) pt Higgs ≥100 GeV To understand differences between the MC’s: look at particular pt Higgs regions

34 essentially identical distributions, minor effects for very high pt max jet pt multiplicity max jet rapidity A) pt Higgs < 30 GeV

35 max jet pt multiplicity max jet rapidity Herwig has no hard ME corrections Pythia has more central jets B) 30 GeV ≤ pt Higgs < 100 GeV Pythia/MCatNLO: m(top)→ ∞ / m(top) exact,  QCD, pdf

36 max jet pt multiplicity max jet rapidity ↑ ↓ C) 100 GeV ≤ pt Higgs

37 → efficiency spread ≈ 10% Differences vary over the p T spectrum: Integrated efficiency over whole p T spectrum and up to a p T Higgs of 80 GeV: Efficiency numbers of the jet veto old  total  up to 80 GeV PYTHIA HERWIG MCatNLO CASCADE (without CASCADE ≈ 5%)