Pixel Upgrade Workshop Grindelwald, August 29 th 2012 PERFORMANCE AND PHYSICS RESULTS FOR PHASE1 UPGRADE Alessia Tricomi (University and INFN Catania)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Impact parameter studies with early data from ATLAS
Advertisements

Sparticle reconstruction in dilepton final state M. Chiorboli, M. Galanti & A. Tricomi University & INFN Catania CMS Physics Review I. SUSY/BSM CERN,
B-tagging, leptons and missing energy in ATLAS after first data Ivo van Vulpen (Nikhef) on behalf of the ATLAS collaboration.
Guoming CHEN The Capability of CMS Detector Chen Guoming IHEP, CAS , Beijing.
Recent Results on the Possibility of Observing a Standard Model Higgs Boson Decaying to WW (*) Majid Hashemi University of Antwerp, Belgium.
CMS High Level Trigger Selection Giuseppe Bagliesi INFN-Pisa On behalf of the CMS collaboration EPS-HEP 2003 Aachen, Germany.
1  trigger optimization in CMS Tracker Giuseppe Bagliesi On behalf of  tracking group Workshop on B/tau Physics at LHC Helsinki, May 30 - June 1, 2002.
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.
Daniele Benedetti CMS and University of Perugia Chicago 07/02/2004 High Level Trigger for the ttH channel in fully hadronic decay at LHC with the CMS detector.
1 introduction sample: W’  tb  Wbb  eνbb/μνbb generator: PYTHIA five samples with W’ mass: 300GeV, 500GeV, 1000GeV, 1500GeV, 2000GeV number of events.
ADR for Massimiliano Chiorboli Universita’ and INFN Catania
1 The CMS Heavy Ion Program Michael Murray Kansas.
1 Viktor Veszprémi (Purdue University, CDF Collaboration) SUSY 2005, Durham Search for the SM Higgs Boson at the CDF Experiment Search for the SM Higgs.
Tau Jet Identification in Charged Higgs Search Monoranjan Guchait TIFR, Mumbai India-CMS collaboration meeting th March,2009 University of Delhi.
LCWS 2004, ParisSonja Hillert, University of Oxfordp. 1 Flavour tagging performance analysis for vertex detectors LCWS 2004, Paris Sonja Hillert (Oxford)
H → ZZ →  A promising new channel for high Higgs mass Sara Bolognesi – Torino INFN and University Higgs meeting 23 Sept – CMS Week.
Archana Sharma, Suman Beri Panjab University Chandigarh India-CMS meeting TIFR, Jan Updates on the RPC trigger efficiency work with data driven.
Performance of Track and Vertex Reconstruction and B-Tagging Studies with CMS in pp Collisions at sqrt(s)=7 TeV Boris Mangano University of California,
HERA-LHC, CERN Oct Preliminary study of Z+b in ATLAS /1 A preliminary study of Z+b production in ATLAS The D0 measurement of  (Z+b)/  (Z+jet)
Operation of the CMS Tracker at the Large Hadron Collider
Possibility of tan  measurement with in CMS Majid Hashemi CERN, CMS IPM,Tehran,Iran QCD and Hadronic Interactions, March 2005, La Thuile, Italy.
Simulation of the 4 Layer Pixel Upgrade System (Fermilab) (For the Tracker Upgrade Simulations Group) Simulation of the 4 Layer Pixel Upgrade System Harry.
25 sep Reconstruction and Identification of Hadronic Decays of Taus using the CMS Detector Michele Pioppi – CERN On behalf.
B-Tagging Algorithms for CMS Physics
FIMCMS, 26 May, 2008 S. Lehti HIP Charged Higgs Project Preparative Analysis for Background Measurements with Data R.Kinnunen, M. Kortelainen, S. Lehti,
December 3rd, 2009 Search for Gluinos and Squarks in events with missing transverse momentum DIS 2013: XXI. International workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering.
SUSY06, UC Irvine, June 2006Filip Moortgat, ETH Zurich SUSY06 Higgs (to bb) final states (including the Hemisphere Separation Algorithm) top final states.
DPF2000, 8/9-12/00 p. 1Richard E. Hughes, The Ohio State UniversityHiggs Searches in Run II at CDF Prospects for Higgs Searches at CDF in Run II DPF2000.
Update on H→WW→2μ2ν Update on H→WW→2μ2ν Oct. 8, 2010 IFCA – U. Oviedo.
Bangalore, India1 Performance of GLD Detector Bangalore March 9 th -13 th, 2006 T.Yoshioka (ICEPP) on behalf of the.
INCLUSIVE STANDARD MODEL HIGGS SEARCHES HIGGS SEARCHES WITH ATLAS Francesco Polci LAL Orsay On behalf of the ATLAS collaboration. SUSY08 – Seoul (Korea)
Recent Open Heavy Flavor Results from ATLAS and CMS Experiment at LHC
 DM Models & Signatures in CMS searches  Analyzing CMS data  MonoJet, MonoLepton, MonoPhoton, MonoTop, Top pairs  SUSY Searches  Perspectives for.
Benchmarking Tracking & Vertexing Andrei Nomerotski (Oxford) SiD Tracking Meeting, 7 December 2007.
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,
Early LHC data preparations for SUSY searches at CMS Didar Dobur University of Florida Representing the CMS Collaboration ICHEP July 2010, Paris.
By Henry Brown Henry Brown, LHCb, IOP 10/04/13 1.
Fast Simulation and the Higgs: Parameterisations of photon reconstruction efficiency in H  events Fast Simulation and the Higgs: Parameterisations of.
Software Tools for Layout Optimization (Fermilab) Software Tools for Layout Optimization Harry Cheung (Fermilab) For the Tracker Upgrade Simulations Working.
Using Track based missing Et tools to reject fake MET background Muhammad Firdaus Mohd Soberi UMichigan-CERN Semester Program Thursday, 12 th February.
Susan Burke DØ/University of Arizona DPF 2006 Measurement of the top pair production cross section at DØ using dilepton and lepton + track events Susan.
Top quarks at the LHC: the early days Detector commissioning and first results T. Wengler Standard Model workshop UCL, London, 31 March 09.
DØ Beauty Physics in Run II Rick Jesik Imperial College BEACH 2002 V International Conference on Hyperons, Charm and Beauty Hadrons Vancouver, BC, June.
W / Z / Drell Yan Physics in the first year of CMS Roberto Tenchini INFN – Pisa CTEQ Workshop "Physics at the LHC: Early Challenges“ W.K. Kellogg Biological.
Tommaso Boccali SNS and INFN Pisa Vertex 2002 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 3-8 November 2002 High Level Triggers at CMS with the Tracker.
1 Diboson production with CMS Vuko Brigljevic Rudjer Boskovic Institute, Zagreb on behalf of the CMS Collaboration Physics at LHC Cracow, July
Alain Romeyer - Sept Light Higgs search in SUSY cascades Introduction (Previous studies) Plans for this analysis Simulation chain Reconstruction.
B-Tagging Algorithms at the CMS Experiment Gavril Giurgiu (for the CMS Collaboration) Johns Hopkins University DPF-APS Meeting, August 10, 2011 Brown University,
University of Iowa Study of qq->qqH  qq ZZ Alexi Mestvirishvili November 2004, CMS PRS Workshop at FNAL.
La Thuile, March, 15 th, 2003 f Makoto Tomoto ( FNAL ) Prospects for Higgs Searches at DØ Makoto Tomoto Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (For the.
Background Shape Study for the ttH, H  bb Channel Catrin Bernius First year talk 15th June 2007 Background Shape Study for the ttH 0, H 0  bb Channel.
Mark OwenManchester Christmas Meeting Jan Search for h ->  with Muons at D  Mark Owen Manchester HEP Group Meeting January 2006 Outline: –Introduction.
Living Long At the LHC G. WATTS (UW/SEATTLE/MARSEILLE) WG3: EXOTIC HIGGS FERMILAB MAY 21, 2015.
 reconstruction and identification in CMS A.Nikitenko, Imperial College. LHC Days in Split 1.
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.
Pixel Phase 1 Physics/Simulations (Fermilab) for the Tracker Upgrade Simulations Group Pixel Phase 1 Physics/Simulations Harry Cheung (Fermilab) for the.
Suyong Choi (SKKU) SUSY Standard Model Higgs Searches at DØ Suyong Choi SKKU, Korea for DØ Collaboration.
David Lange Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Study on B-tagging and SUSY in ATLAS Experiment Yu Bai (IHEP), Nicolas Bousson(CPPM), Shan Jin(IHEP), Emmanuel Monnier(CPPM), Huan Ren(IHEP), Lianyou Shan(IHEP),
ATLAS UK physics meeting, 10/01/08 1 Triggers for B physics Julie Kirk RAL Overview of B trigger strategy Algorithms – current status and plans Menus Efficiencies.
Pixel Phase 1 Upgrade Simulation: Technical Status and Plans (Fermilab) (For the Tracker Upgrade Simulations Group) Pixel Phase 1 Upgrade Simulation: Technical.
Erik Devetak Oxford University 18/09/2008
IOP HEPP Conference Upgrading the CMS Tracker for SLHC Mark Pesaresi Imperial College, London.
Strawman A Status Report
Prospects for sparticle reconstruction at new SUSY benchmark points
SUSY particles searches with R-parity violation at DØ, Tevatron
Contents First section: pion and proton misidentification probabilities as Loose or Tight Muons. Measurements using Jet-triggered data (from run).
Susan Burke, University of Arizona
Presentation transcript:

Pixel Upgrade Workshop Grindelwald, August 29 th 2012 PERFORMANCE AND PHYSICS RESULTS FOR PHASE1 UPGRADE Alessia Tricomi (University and INFN Catania) on behalf of the Tracker Upgrade Simulation Group

Performance studies  The goal for the TDR was to show improvement in Physics cases and robustness of the new design.  Focus on relative improvement of the upgrade wrt current geometry.  Two complementary approaches:  Show improvements in basic building blocks for physics using a full (Geant) simulation of the upgrade Demonstrate improvements in tracking efficiency and fake rate Demonstrate improved IP resolution and b-tagging performance  Improvements in relevant physics channels (under PC responsibility) Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 2

Pixel Upgrade dictionary Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi  Current Detector:  Current pixel detector geometry (3 barrel layers, 2 disks)  Current beam pipe  Dedicated “SLHC” release CMSSW_4_2_8_SLHC2 to use Design/Ideal conditions and same configurations/settings for tracking  Phase1 Upgrade (R30F12) geometry:  Upgrade geometry with 4 BPIX layers and 3 endcap disks First barrel layer at R=30 with 12 faces New detailed material description according to PSI drawings New beampipe (Sunanda) implemented  CMSSW_4_2_8_SLHCtk backporting 3

Upgrade Studies  Study at  2×10 34 cm -2 s -1 at 25ns (50ns), =50 (100)  1×10 34 cm -2 s -1 at 25 ns, =25  zero PU  Dynamic data loss (due to pixel ROC) used in simulations  Tracking steps modified for upgrade geometry and high PU  Using CMSSW_4_2_8 but with 5_2_0 tracking backported  Dropped detached tracking steps (see backup slides)  Used regular CMS DQM validation packages to get tracking and b-tagging performance plots  Fullsim, 14 TeV, ideal conditions, no pixel CPE templates used  ttbar from PYTHIA (10K events)  Muon gun (10K events-4 muons/event, generated flat in pT and eta, 200k events-ten muons/event, generated flat in p and eta) Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 4

Data loss for Upgrade Studies Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi  Peak luminosity values Current DetectorRadius (cm) % Data loss at 1  10 % Data loss at 2  10 % Data loss at 2  10 BPIX BPIX BPIX FPIX1& Phase 1 DetectorRadius (cm) % Data loss at 1  10 % Data loss at 2  10 % Data loss at 2  10 BPIX BPIX BPIX BPIX FPIX

Upgrade Iterative Tracking (Stdgeom) Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi  5_2_0 tracking for current pixel geometry (from “2012 tune”)  Close to 5_2_0 tracking, use steps 0-2, and 4A (for high eta)  Reduce step 4A d 0 cut to reduce CPU and memory usage IterationSeedsp T cut (GeV) d 0 cut (cm) d z cut (cm) Min hits 0pixel triplets σ bs 3 1low p T pixel triplets σ bs 3 2pixel pairs with vtx σ bs 3 3 detached triplets Apixel +(TEC(1 ring)) triplets BBPIX+TIB triplets TIB, TID, TEC pairs (fewer) TOB, TEC pairs Release CMSSW_4_2_8_SLHCstd2_patch1 Tracking steps 6

Upgrade Iterative Tracking (Phase 1) Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi  5_2_0 tracking for Phase 1 geometry (not optimized)  Make close to 5_2_0 tracking, use steps 0-2, and 4A, add step “-1”  Step 3 (pixel pairs) to recover efficiency in eta ~1.2–1.4 region IterationSeedsp T cut (GeV) d 0 cut (cm) d z cut (cm) Min hits 0pixel quadruplets σ bs 3 1pixel triplets σ bs 3 2low p T pixel triplets σ bs 3 3pixel pairs with vtx σ bs 3 3old detached triplets Apixel +(TEC(1 ring)) triplets BBPIX+TIB triplets TIB, TID, TEC pairs (fewer) TOB, TEC pairs Release CMSSW_4_2_8_SLHCtk3_patch1 Tracking steps 7

Pixel Upgrade Material Budget  Reduced material even with more layers “Volumes”Mass (g) CurrentDesign Upgrade BPIX  < FPIX  < Rad. Len.Nucl. Int. Len. Dots – Upgrade Green – Curr geom Pixels Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 8 50% less photon conversion in/before pixel at eta 1.5

Transverse and Longitudinal IP Primary Vertex Tracking Btagging Robustness Object performance Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 9

Impact Parameter Resolutions 10  Transverse: muon sample (10 muons/event), zero pileup  Generated flat in E and eta (plot vs absolute p and in 4 eta regions)  Compare current and upgrade detectors (modified MTV) Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi

Impact Parameter Resolutions  Longitudinal: muon sample (10 muons/event), zero pileup  Generated flat in E and eta (plot vs absolute p and in 4 eta regions)  Compare current and upgrade detectors Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 11

Impact Parameter Resolutions  Transverse: muon sample (10 muons/event), =50  Generated flat in E and eta (plot vs absolute p and in 4 eta regions)  Compare current and upgrade detectors Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 12

Impact Parameter Resolutions  Longitudinal: muon sample (10 muons/event), =50  Generated flat in E and eta (plot vs absolute p and in 4 eta regions)  Compare current and upgrade detectors Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 13

Primary Vertex Resolution  ttbar sample, zero PU and =50 Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 14

Tracking in ttbar 15  ttbar sample,  High purity  p T > 0.9 GeV/c Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi

Tracking with muons  Muon sample  High purity  p T >1 GeV/c  num tracking layers with hits >= 8 Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 16

Tracking Efficiency/Fake Rate  ttbar sample, compare current and upgrade detectors  High purity, p T > 0.9 GeV/c Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 17

Tracking vs PU  Average tracking efficiencies vs PU  ttbar, high purity tracks, p T > 0.9 GeV/c Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 18

Tracking vs PU  Average track fake rates vs PU  ttbar, high purity tracks, p T > 0.9 GeV/c Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 19

B-tagging Performance  ttbar, CSV tagger, compare current and upgrade  ak5PFjets PFnoPU, jet p T > 30 GeV, DUS,c,b jets 15% absolute gain in b jet efficiency for 1% fake rate Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 20

B-tagging Performance  ttbar, CSV tagger, compare current and upgrade, =100  ak5PFjets PFnoPU, jet p T > 30 GeV, DUS,c,b jets Improvement even more impressive at 100 PU Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 21

B tagging performance Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 22  Upgrade as good or better at high pileup as current at low pileup Upgrade PU50 Current PU0 Upgrade PU50 Current PU25

B-tagging Performance vs PU  ttbar, CSV tagger, compare current and upgrade, =50  ak5PFjets PFnoPU, jet p T > 30 GeV, DUS,b jets  Much better handling high Pile-Up Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 23

Robustness: BPIX1 Inefficiency Study  Vary inefficiency of BPIX layer 1: 0%, 5%, 10%, 20%  All other layers at 100%  ttbar, =50, light quark mis-tag=1%  Upgrade detector more robust to BPIX1 inefficiency Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 24

Robustness: BPIX1 Inefficiency Study  Vary inefficiency of BPIX layer 1: 0%, 5%, 10%, 20%  All other layers at 100%  ttbar, =50, high purity tracks, p T >0.9 GeV/c  Upgrade detector more robust to BPIX1 inefficiency Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 25

TIB Inefficiency Study  Switch off certain modules (in black below)  List provided by Frank Hartmann  Or consider a uniform 20% inefficiency in TIB1,2 Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 26

Robustness to TIB degradation Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 27 With Dead Modules With 20% uniform inefficiency in TIB1,2 Upgrade detector more robust wrt TIB loss

Small pixel scenario: tracking with ttbar at 100PU Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 28 BPIX Layer1: pixel size 75x100  m 2, 220  m thickness ROC threshold 1200 e - instead of 2000 Significant improvement at 100 PU wrt Upgrade Phase1 detector Good news towards Phase2

Small pixel scenario: btagging performance Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 29 BPIX Layer1: pixel size 75x100  m 2, 220  m thickness ROC threshold 1200 e - instead of 2000 No data loss Significant improvement at 100 PU wrt Upgrade Phase1 detector Good news towards Phase2

ZH  llbb H  ZZ  4l SUSY M T2 SUSY  +MET All analysis show relative improvement and have not been optimized/retuned for high PU Physics Performance Grindelwald, 29/08/12 30 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi

ZH  llbb Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 31  Analysis based on: 1. triggering on lepton events; 2. kinematic reconstruction of Z from isolated dileptons; 3. reconstructing invariant mass from two b-tagged jets; 4. multivariate final variable  Higher muon/electron ID efficiency helps with (1-2), better b-tagging helps with (3-4)  Compare relative performance of current detector and upgrade at 14 TeV with 50 pileup events

ZH   bb event selection Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 32

ZH   bb cut flow Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 33 Values greater than 1 show increased efficiency for the Phase1 upgrade and vice versa

ZH  eebb event selection Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 34  Same selection as for muons but  Electrons use 95% working-point of VBTF  Isolation is relaxed as in the di-muon analysis  Dimuon mass ~2 GeV high, so Z mass cut increased by +2 GeV like in dimuon analysis  Other criteria same as for di-muon channel

ZH  eebb cut flow Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 35 Values greater than 1 show increased efficiency for the Phase1 upgrade and vice versa

ZH  llbb results Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 36  ZH   bb  65% relative gain in signal efficiency for di-muon channel  75% gain with single muon HLT  175% gain with dimuon HLT (upgrade detector barely affected by the three pixel hit requirement)  ZH  eebb  65% relative gain in signal efficiency for di-electron channel  Not enough MC to properly estimate total reductions in backgrounds

H  ZZ  4l Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 37  Analysis based on: 1. triggering on di-lepton events; 2. kinematic reconstruction of 2 Zs from isolated di-leptons; 3. reconstructing invariant mass of Higgs  Higher muon/electron ID efficiency helps with (1-2)  Compare relative performance of current detector and upgrade at 14 TeV with 50 pileup events

H  ZZ  4l event selection Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 38  Using same cuts as in 2012 analysis (HIG )  PF leptons used  Electrons p T > 7 GeV, | η | 5 GeV, | η | < 2.4  Isolation relaxed from 0.15 to 5.0  |SIP 3D |<4 for each lepton  40 4GeV  m 4l > 100 GeV  same HLT estimate as in ZH: 3+ pixel hits on trigger leptons

H  ZZ  4  cut flow Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 39 Values greater than 1 show increased efficiency for the Phase1 upgrade and vice versa 40% gain in 4  channel

H  ZZ  4e cut flow Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 40 Values greater than 1 show increased efficiency for the Phase1 upgrade and vice versa 50% gain in 4e channel

H  ZZ  2e2  cut flow Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 41 Values greater than 1 show increased efficiency for the Phase1 upgrade and vice versa 48% gain in 2e2  channel

SUSY M T2 b analysis Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 42  Fully hadronic final states with large MET  B jets coming from cascade decay of gluino and squark to third generation sbottom, stop  SUSY particles identified through the discovery parameter M T2  Tail of Supersimmetric Transverse Mass related to parent sparticle mass (endpoint)  Compare relative performance of current detector and upgrade at 14 TeV with 50 pileup events wrt to btagging improvement  Signal: LM9 benchmark point  Bkg: ttbar  See AN-2012/275 for details

SUSY M T2 b event selection Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 43  Good primary vertes  Veto electrons: p T >10 GeV/c; | η |<2.4; |d0|<0.04cm; |dz|<1.0cm; missing inner hits<2; PFIso<2.0  Veto muons: p T >10 GeV/c; | η | 10; Pix hits>0; PFIso<2.0  Jets: 2 PF jets with p T > 20 GeV/c passing loose JetID; veto events with jets p T >50 GeV/c but failing jet ID  MET: PFMET>30GeV;PFH >750GeV  B-tag: Tight CSV tag > 0.898

SUSY M T2 b analysis Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 44 Before any b-taggingOne b-jet required 20% higher signal selection efficiency can be obtained without any real optimization for the new detector and high pile-up.

SUSY  +MET analysis Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 45  Di-photon events+MET signature for SUSY  No significant SM bkg, small contribution from V   Main bkg comes from fake MET  See AN-2012/269  Same 14 TeV, 50 pileup scenario as others  Main improvement comes from fake rate reduction

SUSY  +MET analysis Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 46  Events divided in four classes: ,  e, ee, fake-fake   e and ee samples used to estimate fake rate by fitting Z peak

SUSY  +MET analysis Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 47  Fake rate 7.0% for the current detector and 1.25% for Phase1 pixel detectors  Fake rate with the upgrade detector at 50 PU is comparable with the performance of the current detector in low luminosity run

Conclusions Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 48  All results show that the new detector at high PU performs as well or even better than the current detector at low luminosity  The results also show that the new detector is fairly robust against possible inefficiency in BPIX1 and TIB1,2  All the results have been approved by Tracking/btagging/Physics group – PAS SUS  Improvements from the new design are broad and substantial and will have a significant impact our physics program  Still a lot of work to be done to tune algorithms and analysis for high PU scenario  Stay tuned!

Back-up slides Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 49

Tracking for Upgrade Studies Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi  Use 4_2_8 but with 5_2_0 tracking, and drop detached trks  Fullsim, 14 TeV, ideal conditions, no pixel templates  Regular CMS validation package, current and upgrade pixel det IterationSeedsp T cut (GeV) d 0 cut (cm) d z cut (cm) Min hits 0pixel triplets σ bs 3 1low p T pixel triplets σ bs 3 2pixel pairs with vtx σ bs 3 3 detached triplets Apixel +(TEC(1 ring)) triplets BBPIX+TIB triplets TIB, TID, TEC pairs (fewer) TOB, TEC pairs Regular 5_2_0 Tracking steps 50

Impact Parameter Resolutions  Transverse: muon sample (10 muons/event), zero pileup  Generated flat in E and eta (plot vs absolute p and in 4 eta regions)  Compare with/without (50PU) dynamic data loss for current detector Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 51

Impact Parameter Resolutions  Longitudinal: muon sample (10 muons/event), zero pileup  Generated flat in E and eta (plot vs absolute p and in 4 eta regions)  Compare with/without (50PU) dynamic data loss for current detector Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 52

Primary Vertex Resolution  ttbar sample, zero PU and =50  Compare with/without (50PU) dynamic data loss for current detector Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 53

Tracking Efficiency and Fake Rates  Average tracking efficiencies, high purity, p T >0.9 GeV SampleStdgeom Efficiency (%)Phase 1 Efficiency (%) Mu PU0 pt0.9,8hit97.4 ± ± 0.1 Mu PU0 pt0.9,8hit, dloss93.9 ± ± 0.1 Mu PU50 pt0.9,8hit90.1 ± ± 0.1 Mu PU50 pt0.9,8hit, dloss81.5 ± ± 0.1 ttbar PU0 pt ± ± 0.1 ttbar PU0 pt0.9, dloss85.6 ± ± 0.1 ttbar PU50 pt ± ± 0.1 ttbar PU50 pt0.9, dloss79.7 ± ± 0.1 Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 54

Tracking Efficiency & Fake rate 55  Using Standard validation packages: MultiTrackValidator Tracking efficiency = #sim trks assoc. to reco trk #sim trks (for signal sim tracks only) Tracking fake rate = #reco trks not assoc. to sim trk #reco trks (for “all” reco tracks) Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi

Tracking Efficiency/Fake Rate  ttbar sample, current detector  generalTracks, p T > 0.1 GeV/c Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 56

Tracking Efficiency/Fake Rate  ttbar sample, upgrade pixel detector detector  generalTracks, p T > 0.1 GeV/c Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 57

Tracking Efficiency/Fake Rate  ttbar sample, compare current and upgrade detectors  generalTracks, p T > 0.1 GeV/c Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 58

B-tagging Performance (BPIX1 Study)  ttbar, CSV tagger, current detector, =50, compare BPIX1  ak5PFjets PFnoPU, jet p T > 30 GeV, DUS,b jets All other layers are at 100% efficiency Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 59

B-tagging Performance (BPIX1 Study)  ttbar, CSV tagger, upgrade detector, =50, compare BPIX1  ak5PFjets PFnoPU, jet p T > 30 GeV, DUS,b jets All other layers are at 100% efficiency Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 60

Outer Tracker Inefficiency Study  Uniform 20% inefficiency in TIB1,2: zero PU and =50  ttbar sample, high purity tracks, p T >0.9 GeV/c Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 61

Outer Tracker Inefficiency Study  Uniform 20% inefficiency in TIB1,2: zero PU and =50  ttbar sample, high purity tracks, p T >0.9 GeV/c  Upgrade detector more robust to Outer Tracker inefficiency Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 62

Outer Tracker Inefficiency Study  Dead Modules in Outer Tracker: zero PU and =50  ttbar sample, high purity tracks, p T >0.9 GeV/c Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 63

Outer Tracker Inefficiency Study  Dead Modules in Outer Tracker: zero PU and =50  ttbar sample, high purity tracks, p T >0.9 GeV/c Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 64

H  ZZ  4l analysis Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 65 Isolation

HZ  bbll Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 66 Di-lepton requirement

H  ZZ  4l analysis Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 67 More pixel hits for muon tracks

H  ZZ  4l analysis Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 68 Better IP

H  ZZ  4l analysis Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 69 Better Z mass resolution

SUSY M T2 analysis Grindelwald, 29/08/12 Pixel Upgrade Meeting Alessia Tricomi 70