Where do we stand with the recommendations of the review panel ?

1. Where do we stand with the recommendations of the review panel ? Tancredi Carli (CERN)

2. A Phd-student from Tel Aviv started to work on that Will be counted as author qualification task Writing out of calorimeter cells already tested

3. Work on-going within the G4 team. To be tested: CHIPS model with G493 expected for December 09

4. The E/P work is getting more organised: e.g. common development of analysis code Expression of interest from more groups. Plans for dedicated analysis meeting in January dESD work has settled for p<10 GeV (within the minimum bias DPD) For p>10 GeV: need to rely on AOD…XXX No work done HLT triggers  should be done

5. Now new work on this issue Generally more effort on forward region is needed.

6. The benchmarks are proposed, but not yet finalized: see Arielstwiki page XXX Jet performance package being rewritten Hope to have first working version in January Common samples with ready to use jet collections for 2010 are under discussion Atlas simulation will be time-dependent: see C Young in Barcelona Dead and noisy channels, trigger menu, background, beam conditions Time dependent calibrations, e.g. luminosity dependent correction not yet addressed (e.g. pile-up).

7. This is generally agreed within the jet/Etmiss group: Jet are calibrated to the “particle level”. In addition, we will provide analysis dependent corrections. We have a framework how to provide special analysis dependent corrections We have an idea who to determine underlying event corrections (from gamma-jet) and discussedhadronisation/fragmentation correction (from MC) However, this is more a physics analysis issue

8. Some work on the relation of jet and Etmiss calibration has been performed • (see October Jet/Etmiss meeting). However, the focus was the use of • the jet energz scale correction that is by default not applied in Etmiss. • In-situ corrections not yet tried out. • Working (with top group) on performance study of various calibration streams • applied via JetCalibTools • More work on Etmiss should follow Work on-going to define shower correction better: Calorimeter showering corrections 2) out-of-jet cone particles Proposal available to decouple showering from jet response

9. We have agreed to the need of keeping 3 basic collections (for early data) topo-cluster 2) topo-tower 3) tower without noise suppressed Performance comparisons are under way For 3) we study different possibilities: a) No negative noise, b) include negative tower as “ghost” in jet finding, subtract energy from jet c) using tower noise tool Aim is to conclude in dedicated meeting 8.12.2009 Warning: we are running option a) presently

10. This problem has recently been solved. When noise suppression is used, the jet area is effectively reduced and this has to be taken into account. Still some problems seen in Forward region and for certain Pile-up scenarios Correction works in all cases to few percent.

11. Work done by Pisa group on Eprime method without fitting: http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=2&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=63406 http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=0&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=66754 No conclusion yet, if this has an advantage over other methods Fit functions and binning have been evaluated in direct balance and MPF method Within the MPF method, the logarithmic parameterisation has been replaced by a power-law. http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=1&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=66751 The differences are small.

12. There has been some effort to study systematic effects on gamma/jet balance e.g. changing selection cuts, reweighting photon spectrum etc. However, a toy MC has not been developed  Should be done Quite comprehensive systematic studies on gamma-jet balance are here: http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=4&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=66751 http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=12&resId=1&materialId=slides&confId=48779 http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=0&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=66754

13. We plan to add the forward region in the di-jet balance method and treat then the difference to the central region as systematic uncertainty. Work on that is on-going. There also has been some study on the MPF response in the forward region

14. We have produce sample with different physics list, changed dead material, noise Some results are available, more work is needed. MC samples with systematics, like physics lists, changed dead-material etc have been produced for mc09 5 TeV. Similar exercise to be done for 3.5 TeV

15. This has been studied for the dijet eta intercalibration (needs update with most recent menu) http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=1&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=66754 No bias is observed when far away from trigger threshold (loss in statistics) Up to 5% uncertainty introduced, if trigger turn on is not correct  needs work For the gamma-jet trigger is ok. Present plan is to have DPD with no prescale Gamma-jet back-ground has been studied within direct gamma/jet balance and MPF A large dijet sample for background studies has been launched by Jet/Etmiss and Egamma (for mc08) in November + Work ongoing to replace simple cuts on hard scattering pt by event weight,e.g. pt-5

16. Lot of progress on layer fraction method. Includes now also jet width. Gives competitive jet performance then global and local cell weighting http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=1&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=66750 Comprehensive studies of on flavour dependence in all calibration schemes are available Biases on the correction chain have been tested: ATL-PHYS-INT-2009-051 http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=3&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=66751 Comparison of sequential and full 3-dim correction available.Results the same within 1% Trigger studies not yet done.

17. We had two dedicated meetings on that. Many interesting results, but the requested samples were late. We have ideas how to calculate the systematics. We have nothing complete. We have to work on that. Next aim: Have a complete systematic uncertainty estimate before we have gamma-jet data available (see also recommendation by jet walk through committee) Started work to propagate in-situ uncertainties:

18. There is substantial progress on robust cosmic rejection in particular in presence of pile-up http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=9&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=64157 Only plan exist for a software framework for physics analysis  should be finalised. No work done in this direction

19. We have compared 2008/2009 commissioning data. The noise is well understood. We are still working on some observed differences in the high energy data Latest results in October meeting Calo monitoring now included in jet/etmiss shifts. Work on details still needed CaloMon, Lar and Tile expert participate in Jet/Etmiss savannah bug reports

20. Electrons and muons do not pose a problem for the new Etmiss code. This issue has been addressed in the October jet/Etmiss meeting We see improvements in Etmissresolution when applying the full jet energy scale for jets (but not for W+jets?). Plan is to repeat this when response and showering are decoupled We have made comprehensive studies of energy showering out of the calorimeter jet This addresses the em-scale. More work is needed for global cell weighting (weight derivation) and local cells weighting (out-of-cluster corrections)

21. The DPD content is finalized The list of samples need is also clear (see Koji talk earlier) Recently, a lot of developments from trigger side. We followed this, but did not looked in detailed at the consequence for jet performance

22. Taken on board. This was always the plan. Work is on-going for the MPF method and the direct photon balance Done in http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=0&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=66754

23. Summary We have made progress in many areas. However, looking back to the report, there are still many open points where more work is needed. To achieve something it takes always more time than anticipated. We have now the first data. Nevertheless it is important that we continue to work according to our plan and also follow the recommendation. The real aim is to have a defendable jet calibration in place for first physics results to be shown in conferences. Many thanks to the committee member for putting together this very useful report.