Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byElizabeth Benson Modified over 6 years ago
1
DiPhoton + MET: Towards Unblinding of the 5 fb-1 Analysis
Bruce Schumm 20 Feb 2012 Reminder about 1 fb-1 analysis New strategy: A B C analyses Optimization MET Blues Background estimates Request for unblinding of A, B analyses only
2
1 fb-1 Analysis: Thumbnail Sketch
(First-order) signal selection straightforward: 2 tight isolated photons with ET 25 GeV ETmiss 125 GeV Optimization based only on ETmiss cut value Optimization geared towards high-mass Gluino for broad range of bino masses (50 GeV to Mgluino)
3
Also: Limit of > 145 TeV set on SPS8 SUSY Breaking scale
Analysis background-limited; sparticle cross section goes as ~M-9 reoptimize!
4
Analysis Improvements
Overlap Criteria - Reverse /e overlap criterion (have medium e kill ) - e fake rate goes from to - 13% signal efficiency loss Conversion pixel requirements - Conversion tracks can have no pixel hits - e backgrounds reduced by 43% (42% for events with one conversion; 61% for events with two conversions) Conversion categories - Division into three conversion categories suggested - No benefit if background is ~0
5
Optimization: General Principles
Two scales characterize GMSB production/decay Missing energy (mostly bino mass; also bino boost) MET Total energy, including photons (sparticle mass) HT Analysis A: High-mass sparticle, high-mass bino Large MET, moderate HT Analysis B: High-mass sparticle, low-mass bino Moderate MET, large HT Analysis C: SPS8 (direct gaugino production; sparticles too heavy) Moderate-to-large MET; NO HT (most like 1 fb-1 analysis) Also: 1 fb-1 backgrounds observed to have photons close to MET (photon to MET) cut explored for A,B,C analsyes
6
Photon Et Optimization (1 fb-1 Analysis)
Helenka Choose Cut of 50/50
7
Full Optimization of A, B, C Points
Dan Optimization strategies: All use photon ET > 50 GeV. A: ETmiss, HT, and Use GGM (Mg,MB) = (900,800) B: ETmiss, HT (signal too small) Use GGM (900,50) C: ETmiss, (low mass scale in production so no HT) Use SPS8; =170 TeV
11
C
12
Optimization of A, B, C Points: Results
Optimization results: All use photon ET > 50 GeV. Figure of merit rather flat in use either 0.5 or no cut Drop unjustified significant digits Target Model ETmiss HT A (900,800) 200 600 0.5 B (900,50) 100 1100 --- C SPS8 170 125
13
MET Issues ETmiss Glossary:
Martin, Dan, Helenka MET_LocHadTopo Local Hadronic calibration applied to all topo clusters MET_RefFinal Based off of objects Local Hadronic calibration used for jet objects MET_SimplifiedRefFinal Based off of objects (Tight photons w/ pT>20 GeV used) EMJES calibration used for jet object Modified version of SimpRefFinal Based off of objects (Loose photons w/ pT>20 GeV used) EMJES calibration used for jet objects Doesn’t exist on D3PD ETmiss Glossary: LocHadTopo: Used for prior diphoton+MET analyses; not directly ATLAS-supported Simplified MetRefFinal: SUSY-group recommended (reconstruct ETmiss from separately-treated objects) MetRefFinal: ATLAS (but non SUSY) supported; available on SUSY D3PDs though. (Use jets with local hadronic calibration) _ Not usable for 5fb-1 analysis; explore for future.
14
SimpMetRefFinal: Initial “Photon Fix”
15
Sample used: +jet MC
17
Background: Definition of “QCD” Control Samples
We model the ETmiss distribution of selected events with no intrinsic missing energy via two control samples: QCDg and QCDgg. A “control photon” satisfies the loose, but not the tight, selection requirement for two shower quantities: the shower shape in the shower core {fracs1} and the shower width {weta1} in the first sampling of the electromagnetic calorimeter. QCDg has one such control photon; QCDgg has two.
18
LocHadTopo
19
!! Must also correct loose photons!
Simplified MetRefFinal !! Must also correct loose photons!
20
QCDg, QCDgg, and gg – MET_SimpRefFinal
No resemblance of control sample eTmiss shape to that of the signal 2/16/2012 20
21
QCDg, QCDgg, and gg – MET_LocHadTopo
N.B.: Studies with +Njets MC suggest high-ETmiss tails a bit larger for SimpMetRefFinal Propose to use LocHadTopo for ETmiss 2/16/2012 21
22
BACKGROUNDS E- Control Sample QCDg Control Sample (DESY) (Penn)
Overlap ? (DESY) Missed? (SCIPP)
23
EW Background from e- control sample
Brig, Jack N.B.: “Signal” is e-
24
Scale factors from Ze/Zee
Multiply these by “signal” numbers on previous page
27
Pseudo-photon control sample (Peter, Martin)
SIGNAL BLINDED FOR MET > 100 GEV QCDg distribution provides shape and tails scale to signal (gamma-gamma) in low-MET region (ETmiss<20 GeV) SIGNAL BLINDED FOR MET > 100 GEV SIGNAL BLINDED FOR MET > 100 GEV
28
Cross-check with MET distribution from Zee (background real ?)
29
No QCDg above 100 GeV Less than 1 event at 95% CL
31
Overlap Between QCDg and EW backgrounds
Martin
34
Missed Backgrounds (?) Dan
Since our “QCD” backgrounds are estimated by normalizing control samples (QCDg, Zee) to low-MET signal, they should be comprehensively accounted for “EW” (W,top) backgrounds estimated via e- control sample Assumes all W,top contributions have at least one e fake Is this true? If not, what is character of the “missed” component? Might the “missed” component in fact be incorporated into the QCD control sample (pseudo-photon) estimate?
35
According to MC, what fraction of EW background is due to e fakes?
36
Of the 25% that is “missed”
No e With e + 18.9 0.0 + jet 47.5 5.0 + 3.0 2.9 + W l 22.9 18.9% % = 66.4% 2/3 is expected to be reflected in the pseudo-photon sample This 2/3 may well be the source of the “EW-contamination” in the pseudo-photon sample (cross-check underway This component is neither missed nor double-counted! Add “QCD” and “EW” backgrounds linearly (values and errors)
37
Background Summary QCD EW TOT A 0.10 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.13 0.13 B
C 0.7 ? 1.2 ? 1.9 ? 1 fb-1 0.8 0.7 3.1 1.5 4.1 1.7* *Includes a 0.2 event contribution from “irreducible” backgrounds (two real photons) that are negligible in A and B regions; needs to be check for C
38
A word on the 5 fb-1 reach (not fully-optimal analyses)
ggm_900_800 -> LL: 142.4, sig: 16.9, #S: 21.3, #B 0.01 ggm_1000_800 -> LL: 39.8, sig: 8.9, #S: 7.1, #B 0.01 ggm_1100_800 -> LL: 10.8, sig: 4.7, #S: 2.4, #B 0.01 ggm_1200_800 -> LL: 3.4, sig: 2.6, #S: 0.9, #B 0.01 C: sps8_170 -> LL: 22.2, sig: 6.7, #S: 11.9, #B 0.9 sps8_180 -> LL: 14.5, sig: 5.4, #S: 8.9, #B 0.9 sps8_200 -> LL: 6.6, sig: 3.6, #S: 5.3, #B 0.9 sps8_220 -> LL: 2.7, sig: 2.3, #S: 3.0, #B 0.9 sps8_240 -> LL: 1.2, sig: 1.5, #S: 1.8, #B 0.9 B: ggm_900_50 -> LL: 45.1, sig: 9.5, #S: 10.3, #B 0.05 ggm_1000_50 -> LL: 13.6, sig: 5.2, #S: 4.0, #B 0.05 ggm_1100_50 -> LL: 2.7, sig: 2.3, #S: 1.2, #B 0.05 ggm_1200_50 -> LL: 0.4, sig: 0.85, #S: 0.3, #B 0.05 Limits for 1 fb-1 about 820 GeV for analysis-A-like scenario and ~145 TeV for SPS8 trajectory
39
Fire and Brimstone Verbatim 2011 analysis GeV increase in limits 2012 analysis improvements GeV increase CMS did better than ATLAS with 1 fb-1 because of More favorable interpretation of GGM model Luck but per fb-1, our analysis was more sensitive Dark matter, light Higgs(?) SUSY (??) Possibility never greater; if something is there, don’t want to miss it! Critical to unblind right away.
40
BACKUP
42
Diphoton+MET meeting - 09.02.2012 - Helenka Przysiezniak / LAPP
GamNp1 diphoton sel LocHadTopo One extra event for MET>100GeV MeanRefFinal MeanLocHadTopo RefFinalSimpSUSY Diphoton+MET meeting Helenka Przysiezniak / LAPP 42
43
Diphoton+MET meeting - 09.02.2012 - Helenka Przysiezniak / LAPP
GamNp2 diphoton sel LocHadTopo One extra event for MET>90GeV MeanRefFinal MeanLocHadTopo RefFinalSimpSUSY Diphoton+MET meeting Helenka Przysiezniak / LAPP 43
44
Diphoton+MET meeting - 09.02.2012 - Helenka Przysiezniak / LAPP
GamNp3 diphoton sel LocHadTopo One extra event for MET110 GeV MeanRefFinal MeanLocHadTopo RefFinalSimpSUSY Diphoton+MET meeting Helenka Przysiezniak / LAPP 44
45
Diphoton+MET meeting - 09.02.2012 - Helenka Przysiezniak / LAPP
GamNp4 diphoton sel LocHadTopo MeanLocHadTopo MeanRefFinal Both have event for MET200GeV RefFinalSimpSUSY Diphoton+MET meeting Helenka Przysiezniak / LAPP 45
46
Diphoton+MET meeting - 09.02.2012 - Helenka Przysiezniak / LAPP
GamNp5 diphoton sel MeanLocHadTopo MeanRefFinal LocHadTopo Few extra events for MET80GeV RefFinalSimpSUSY Diphoton+MET meeting Helenka Przysiezniak / LAPP 46
47
QCDg, QCDgg, and gg – MET_RefFinal
2/16/2012 47
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.