1 / 33

Status Update for: Search for Heavy, Long-Lived Neutralinos in the g +MET+Jet+Track Final State

Texas A&M Group: Paul Geffert , Max Goncharov*, Slava Krutelyov**, Eunsin Lee, David Toback and Peter Wagner*** * Now at MIT ** Now at UCSB *** Now at Penn. Status Update for: Search for Heavy, Long-Lived Neutralinos in the g +MET+Jet+Track Final State. Previous Analysis:.

media
Télécharger la présentation

Status Update for: Search for Heavy, Long-Lived Neutralinos in the g +MET+Jet+Track Final State

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Texas A&M Group: Paul Geffert, Max Goncharov*, Slava Krutelyov**, Eunsin Lee, David Toback and Peter Wagner*** * Now at MIT ** Now at UCSB *** Now at Penn Status Update for:Search for Heavy, Long-Lived Neutralinos in the g+MET+Jet+Track Final State Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University

  2. Previous Analysis: • Delayed Photon Analysis in the g+MET+Jet final state published in PRL • PRL 99, 121801 (2007) • Published more details in a full PRD • PRD 78, 032015 (2008) Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University

  3. Outline • Motivation and Theory • Brief Summary of Previous Analysis • Next Generation Analysis and Strategy • Optimization • Results • Conclusions Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University

  4. Motivation and Theory • GMSB models predict heavy neutralinos that decay to photons • The lightest neutralino can be the NLSP and decay into a gravitino and a photon • Cosmological constraints favor neutralino decay times ~ns • At the Tevatron neutralinos are pair produced from Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University

  5. Brief Summary of the Analysis Signature Leave the detector Can be identified Can be identified • analysis is sensitive to ns lifetimes while analysis is sensitive to prompt neutralino decays Full GMSB strategy: Long and Short lifetime neutralinos • Toback and Wagner, PRD 70, 114032 (2004) Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University

  6. Summary of Original Analysis • Final Cuts: g Et>30GeV, Jet Et>35GeV, Dphi(Jet,MET) >1rad, MET>40GeV • Backgrounds: SM 0.71±0.60, Cosmics 0.46±0.26, Beam Halo 0.07±0.05  Total 1.3±0.7 • 2 events in signal region Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University

  7. Analysis Strategy • Create g+MET preselection sample • Use background distributions to make predictions for different cuts • Optimize for GMSB with ns lifetimes • Use new techniques to improve original analysis • Use lessons from last time to improve the analysis Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University

  8. Analysis Changes • Change to STNtuple  Different tracking • Add a High Pt track • Add new Beam Halo and Cosmic rejection Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University

  9. Tracking Changes • Original analysis used a custom Ntuple; we use Stntuple • Track T0’s not quite as well corrected • Slightly larger RMS for right and wrong vertex timing • Right vertex: 0.64 ns  0.74 ns • Wrong vertex: 2.05 ns  2.11 ns • Gaussian out to many s ?/?/09 SUSY Meeting Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University 9

  10. Reproducing Original Analysis • Applied optimal cuts from original analysis to our new dataset • SM 0.711.45, Cosmics 0.460.60, Beam Halo 0.070.05 • More SM due to larger track T0 RMS • Acceptance 6.1%  5.1% or 5.74.7 events • Fixed a bug in the original ntuples that messed up vertexing • Cross section limit: 128 fb 187 fb ?/?/09 SUSY Meeting Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University 10

  11. Next Generation Improvement New optimization variable: Isolated, high Pt track • Uncommon in SM collisions • Can also reject non-collision backgrounds • From t’s in the decay chain • Track could be from e’s or m’s if model is wrong so some model independence • Use standard definition of isolation: SPt of good tracks in a 0.4 cone Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University

  12. Next Generation Improvements • Ideas for Cosmic Ray and Beam Halo rejection from CDFNote 7960 (don’t use exact suggestions) • Cosmics: Photon must have CES Energy>10 GeV (not biased against delayed photons) • Beam Halo: Less than 2 Plug Hadronic and 8 Central EM tower hits in same wedge as Photon (standard rejection) ?/?/09 SUSY Meeting Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University 12

  13. Preselection Requirements New CDFNote 7960 Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University

  14. Background Sources Two major background types: CDFNote 7960 • Standard Model Collision Events • Photon is matched to correct vertex (“right vertex”) or not (“wrong vertex”) • Corrected times centered around 0ns • Non-Collision Events • Beam Halo • Corrected times mostly less than 0ns • Cosmic Rays • Occur uniformly in time Note: We use the standard definition for vertex corrected photon times. Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University

  15. Background Estimation • Fit the data to background timing templates in different timing control regions • Extrapolate to the signal region, where we expect delayed photons • Described in CDFNote 7960 ?/?/09 SUSY Meeting Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University 15

  16. Timing Distribution for “Right” and “Wrong” Vertex Selection • Plots are from Stntuple • Top- Electron track matches vertex (“Right Vertex”) • Bottom- Electron anti-matched to vertex (“Wrong Vertex”) • With low wrong vertex backgrounds, potential bias problems are small Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University

  17. Timing for Beam Halo and Cosmics Cosmics Events/ns Beam Halo Events/ns The corrected time distributions for beam halo (left) and cosmic ray (right) backgrounds from the Stntuple Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University

  18. Next Generation Improvements • Cosmic Ray and Beam Halo rates drop significantly with minimal loss of efficiency Presample predictions after BH/CR rejection Presample predictions before cuts ?/?/09 SUSY Meeting Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University 18

  19. Optimization Variables Everything varied simultaneously to find true minimum A full list of optimization variables: • Jet Et • Vertex SPt • Dphi between the Jet and Missing Et • Lower limit on signal timing region • Upper limit on signal timing region • Isolated Track Pt Variables that did not help: • Photon Et • Missing Et • Ht • Missing Et Significance New Variables ?/?/09 SUSY Meeting Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University 19

  20. Optimized Cuts Use GMSB point with neutralino (mass, lifetime) = (100 GeV, 5 ns) Assume a 10% systematic error on acceptance (same as PRD) ?/?/09 SUSY Meeting Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University 20

  21. Jet Et N-1 plots: All other variables held at their optimal values Vertical lines show optimal cut value • The expected 95% C.L. cross section limit vs. cut • The bins at or below 0 represent the case of no Jet • Helps reject non-collision events • There is a cosmics event with Jet Et > 800 GeV • Adding a jet clearly helps ?/?/09 SUSY Meeting Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University 21

  22. DPhi(Jet,Met) • Reject events with poorly measured Jets that create Met • Mostly gets rid of QCD ?/?/09 SUSY Meeting Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University 22

  23. Missing Et • Signal has real Met due to neutrinos and gravitinos • Reject SM events with mismeasured timing but no real Met • There is a cosmics event missing from left plot with Met > 800 GeV ?/?/09 SUSY Meeting Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University 23

  24. Isolated Track Pt The bin below 0 represents the case of no Track • Very good at non-collision event rejection • Could be from taus in the signal • Adding an isolated track clearly helps ?/?/09 SUSY Meeting Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University 24

  25. Lower Timing Cut Minimal gain by changing the value • Left- The timing distribution for the signal and all backgrounds Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University

  26. Background Prediction Consistency • The number of events in [-10,-2] ns matches the prediction for [2,10] ns ?/?/09 SUSY Meeting Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University 26

  27. New Optimization vs. Old Optimization • Similar final cuts to original analysis • Added Isolated Track with Pt > 5 GeV • Loosened Vertex SPt from 15  5 GeV • Jet Et dropped from 35  20 GeV • Met dropped from 40 GeV  35 GeV • Dphi(Jet,Met) decreased from 10.4 rad • Signal timing region unchanged [2,10] ns • Cross section limit: 187 fb 127 fb • Each limit calculated using new dataset ?/?/09 SUSY Meeting Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University 27

  28. Conclusions • Completed preliminary re-optimization of the delayed photon analysis • Adding an isolated track helps by allowing us to loosen other cuts • ~40% improvement after re-optimization • Checking to see if adding a track/no jet and no track/jet samples will help • Slides 20 and 23 indicate this is unlikely • Next step is to add more data ?/?/09 SUSY Meeting Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University 28

  29. Backup Slides Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University

  30. Track and Jet Delta R Delta R distribution between the jet and isolated track for optimized cuts The track and jet often the same • Want to determine if we should require: • Only a jet • Only a track • A jet OR a track (exclusive or) • A jet AND a track Data ?/?/09 SUSY Meeting Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University 30

  31. Met Significance • Helps reject events with Met due to poor measurements ?/?/09 SUSY Meeting Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University 31

  32. Vertex SPt • Helps reject non-collison events ?/?/09 SUSY Meeting Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University 32

  33. Ht • There is a cosmics event missing from left plot with Ht > 1600 GeV ?/?/09 SUSY Meeting Paul Geffert -Texas A&M University 33

More Related