Categories for resolution study Categories : eta, energy, number of primary vertices, conversion should be considered Eta : barrel – endcap ? or 4 bins.

Slides:



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

B-tagging, leptons and missing energy in ATLAS after first data Ivo van Vulpen (Nikhef) on behalf of the ATLAS collaboration.
N-1 Plots. 2 N-1 Plots – Lead Photon Mass Cut at 100 GeV applied Lead Photon – More plots in Backup.
June 6 th, 2011 N. Cartiglia 1 “Measurement of the pp inelastic cross section using pile-up events with the CMS detector” How to use pile-up.
Effects of Tracking Limitations On Jet Mass Resolution Chris Meyer UCSC ILC Simulation Reconstruction Meeting July 3, 2007.
1 Vertex fitting Zeus student seminar May 9, 2003 Erik Maddox NIKHEF/UvA.
Background studies for GMSB Andrea Bangert Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics May 6 th, 2010.
First Look at Conversions for Non-Pointing Photons US ATLAS Egamma Meeting March Bruce Schumm, UCSC/SCIPP.
Clustering: Algorithm development and analysis R. Cassell, G. Bower.
Status of  b Scan Jianchun Wang Syracuse University Representing L b scanners CLEO Meeting 05/11/02.
Effects of Tracking Limitations On Jet Mass Resolution Chris Meyer UCSC ILC Simulation Reconstruction Meeting July 3, 2007.
In order to acquire the full physics potential of the LHC, the ATLAS electromagnetic calorimeter must be able to efficiently identify photons and electrons.
ISSUES AND SYSTEMATICS ASSOCIATED WITH FIDING LOW-ENERGY PHOTONS WHEN RECONSTRUCTING  0 s Luke Winstrom Al Eisner Bruce Schumm.
Alpgen MC Samples Jet Flavour Identifier Lepton ID Plots.
1 High energy photon pairs: L1/HLT Studies Vladimir Litvin, Toyoko Orimoto Caltech, CMS Group Meeting 13June 2007.
Feb High-pT Physics at Prague1 T. Horaguchi Hiroshima University Feb. 4 for the 4 th International Workshop.
1 Shower maximum detector (SMD) is a wire proportional counter – strip readout detector using gas amplification. SMD is used to provide a spatial resolution.
ORDERING NUMBERS REVIEW. How do we compare decimals? Order from least to greatest: 0.6, 0.57, 0.62, Line up the decimal points vertically and compare.
W  eν The W->eν analysis is a phi uniformity calibration, and only yields relative calibration constants. This means that all of the α’s in a given eta.
Energy loss improvements and tracking Niels van Eldik, Peter Kluit, Alan Poppleton, Andi Salzburger, Sharka Todorova Common Tracking Meeting 4 July 2013.
The Forward Liquid Argon Calorimeter of the ATLAS Detector Geant4 Workshop' September. Triumf, Vancouver Patricia Méndez Lorenzo. CERN EP/SFT 1.
Napoli Doct. School 9 JULY 07 1 DRELL-YAN /Z/Z q q e,e, e+, +e+, +
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,
Kati Lassila-Perini/HIP HIP CMS Software and Physics project evaluation1/ Electron/ physics in CMS Kati Lassila-Perini HIP Activities in the.
1 Hgg Cut based Analysis update Jim Branson, Chris Palmer, Marco Pieri, Matteo Sani, Sean Simon.
Jet Validation of Summer11 MC Artur Apresyan Caltech Joanna Weng ETH Zurich Kittikul Kovitanggoon Texas Tech University 1.
Study of exclusive radiative B decays with LHCb Galina Pakhlova, (ITEP, Moscow) for LHCb collaboration Advanced Study Institute “Physics at LHC”, LHC Praha-2003,
G4 Validation meeting (5/11/2003) S.VIRET LPSC Grenoble Photon testbeam Data/G4 comparison  Motivation  Testbeam setup & simulation  Analysis & results.
PHOTON RECONSTRUCTION IN CMS APPLICATION TO H   PHOTON RECONSTRUCTION IN CMS APPLICATION TO H   Elizabeth Locci SPP/DAPNIA, Saclay, France Prague.
Level 3 / 4 Basic Facts Stage 7 Advanced Multiplicative.
Fast Shower Simulation in ATLAS Calorimeter Wolfgang Ehrenfeld – University of Hamburg/DESY On behalf of the Atlas-Calorimeter and Atlas-Fast-Parameterisation.
Γ +Jet Analysis for the CMS Pooja Gupta, Brajesh Choudhary, Sudeep Chatterji, Satyaki Bhattacharya & R.K. Shivpuri University of Delhi, India.
Status of the hadronic cross section (small angle) Federico Nguyen February 22 nd 2005  the 2002 data sample and available MC sets  trigger efficiency.
Preliminary Measurement of the Ke3 Form Factor f + (t) M. Antonelli, M. Dreucci, C. Gatti Introduction: Form Factor Parametrization Fitting Function and.
Measurements of sin2  1 in processes at Belle CKM workshop at Nagoya 2006/12/13 Yu Nakahama (University of Tokyo) for the Belle Collaboration Analysis.
Fast Simulation and the Higgs: Parameterisations of photon reconstruction efficiency in H  events Fast Simulation and the Higgs: Parameterisations of.
Search for Extra Dimensions in diphotons at CMS Duong Nguyen Brown University USLOU Meeting Fermilab, Oct , 2010.
1 The comparisons between with and without JES uncertainty. jet with pt > 30 GeV, |eta| 40. Jet Y is calculated by 0.5*log[(E+pz)/(E-pz)] CMS Data.
14/06/11 Jet physics meetingV.Kostyukhin 1 Flavour fractions in di-jet system V.Kostyukhin C.Lapoire M.Lehmacher Bonn.
Plans for Jet Energy Corrections Jet Energy Scale Task Force Monica Vazquez Acosta, Anwar Bhatti, Jochen Cammin, Rick Cavanaugh, Jorgen D’Hondt, Guenther.
Measuring Oscillation Parameters Four different Hadron Production models  Four predicted Far  CC spectrum.
Impact Parameter Resolution Measurements from 900 GeV LHC DATA Boris Mangano & Ryan Kelley (UCSD)
H  in CMS Chris Seez Friday, 16 th March 2012 at LAL Orsay.
E+p GeV Bin : 0.5
Photon Physics activities Higgs activities ATLAS LPNHE group meeting, 2011, Nov. 8th.
Photon purity measurement on JF17 Di jet sample using Direct photon working Group ntuple Z.Liang (Academia Sinica,TaiWan) 6/24/20161.
1 H → γγ analysis Maosen Zhou 02/04/ For the coupling measurement,the categories are chosen to probe different Higgs production models,such as.
E. Soldatov Tight photon efficiency study using FSR photons from Z  ll  decays E.Yu.Soldatov* *National Research Nuclear University “MEPhI”
DE/dx in ATLAS TILECAL Els Koffeman Atlas/Nikhef Sources: PDG DRDC (1995) report RD34 collaboration CERN-PPE
INFN - PadovaBeauty Measurements in pp with the Central Detector 1 Beauty Measurements in p-p with the Central Detector F. Antinori, C. Bombonati, A. Dainese,
Jet Energy Scale in ATLAS Pierre-Antoine Delsart LAPP (Annecy) Top workshop, Grenoble, october 2007.
XLIX International Winter Meeting on Nuclear Physics January 2011 Bormio, Italy G. Cattani, on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of.
Alpine, very forward, EOS…
M. Kuhn, P. Hopchev, M. Ferro-Luzzi
Stato della Calibrazione EM
Heavy Flavor Results from CMS
5% The CMS all silicon tracker simulation
Overview of CMS H→ analysis and the IHEP/IPNL contributions
Summary of FMS/Jet Meetings
2vtx tagged dijets mass resolution study
CMS-Bijing weekly meeting
How to Measure Energy-Dependent Lags without bins in Energy or Time?
 discrimination with converted photons
2.3 Estimating PDFs and PDF Parameters
R Value measurement from to GeV
CMS-Bijing weekly meeting
Report on p0 decay width: analysis updates
QqH;H->rr 肖虹
CMS-Bijing weekly meeting
Search for
Presentation transcript:

Categories for resolution study Categories : eta, energy, number of primary vertices, conversion should be considered Eta : barrel – endcap ? or 4 bins like [0, 0.6], [0.6, 1.37], [1.52, 1.81], [1.81, 2.37] ? Energy : how to define the energy bins ?

Fraction of eta division Leading [0, 0.6 ] Leading [0.6, 1.37] Leading [1.52, 1.81] Leading [1.81, 2.37] subleading [0, 0.6 ] 16.36%16.74%3.17%2.51% subleading [0.6, 1.37 ] 17.61%16.00%3.07%3.85% subleading [1.52, 1.81 ] 3.27%3.42%1.04%1.54% subleading [1.81, 2.37 ] 3.31%4.44%1.32%2.23% Di-photon, tagging as leading and sub-leading Leading In barrel Leading In endcap Subleading in barrel 66.71%12.60% Subleading In endcap 14.44%6.13% If upper limit of the new MC is around 1,000,000. barrel – endcap division might be a better choice Also, do we need to tag two photons as leading and subleading in eta category ? 4 eta bins -- [0, 0.6], [0.6, 1.37], [1.52, 1.81], [1.81, 2.37] barrel / endcap

conversion possibility in each eta bin [0, 0.6][0.6, 1.37][1.52, 1.81][1.81,2.37] Unconverted76.75%62.52%53.08%51.89% converted23.25%37.48%46.92%48.11% Leading photon : subleading photon : [0, 0.6][0.6, 1.37][1.52, 1.81][1.81,2.37] Unconverted75.68%63.87%52.11%51.29% converted24.32%36.13%47.89%48.71% Conversion for leading and subleading photon are more or less the same

Glance on the resolution at different categories

Resolution parameter comparison categorized by eta CBsigmaCBmeanCBalphaCBfracCBnGAmeanGAsigma B + B * B + E E + B E + E B + B means: leading photon in barrel and subleading photon in barrel CBsigmaCBmeanCBalphaCBfracCBnGAmeanGAsigma B + B * B + E E + B E + E Without smearing : With smearing :

Resolution parameter comparison categorized by E (1) High E : E of leading Photon > 68 GeV, E of subleading Photon > 68 GeV Low E : E of leading Photon < 68 GeV, E of subleading Photon < 68 GeV smeared High E low E both of the two photons are in barrel

Resolution parameter comparison categorized by E (2) both of the two photons are in barrel and unconverted High E low E smeared High E : E of leading Photon > 68 GeV, E of subleading Photon > 68 GeV Low E : E of leading Photon < 68 GeV, E of subleading Photon < 68 GeV

next 1. Decide the categories of eta and energy ; 2. Any other category should be considered ? 3. Estimate the size of new MC asap

Back up

Resolution parameter comparison categorized by eta (2) Endcap + endcap is not precise enough smeared