1 / 30

- Calibration for jets

- Calibration for jets. Reminder on the DØ detector Jet Identification and Reconstruction Jet Energy Scale: results from Run 1 b-jet calibration. Run II Detector. - Calorimeter. Fine segmentation: semi-projective towers in 0.1 x0.1 4 em layers: 2, 2, 7, 10 X 0

giacomo
Télécharger la présentation

- Calibration for jets

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. - Calibration for jets • Reminder on the DØ detector • Jet Identification and Reconstruction • Jet Energy Scale: • results from Run 1 • b-jet calibration

  2. Run II Detector

  3. - Calorimeter • Fine segmentation: • semi-projective towers in 0.1 x0.1 • 4 em layers: 2, 2, 7, 10 X0 • shower-max (EM3): 0.05 x 0.05 • 4/5 hadronic (FH + CH) • hermetic with full coverage • || < 4.2 (  2o) • int > 7.2 (total) • Uranium absorber (Cu (CC) or Steel (EC) for coarse hadronic) • compensating e/  1 • to be studied with shorter shaping from test beam data e: sE/E= 15% /ÖE+ 0.3% p: sE/E= 45% /ÖE + 4% Beam Tests of the D0 Uranium Liquid Argon Calorimeter.NIM A324, 53 (1993) NIM A 338 185 (1994)

  4. 250 MeV 0.25 ADC count/MeV Gain 8 1 GeV Gain  1 0 10 20 30 40 50 GeV 0 4 ~Energy/GeV SCA non-linearity • functional form of SCA non-linearity correction function • correction important at low energies • electronic noise translates into higher energy • jet become more narrow for energies > 200MeV non-linearity introduces an offset of ~250 MeV for the gain 8 measurements

  5. Central Jet Triggers • L2 jet • Cluster 3x3 or 5x5 trigger towers around L1 seed towers • L3 jet • Simple cone or tower NN algo’s 0.1x0.1 towers • 3 single jet (tower) triggers: • JT_LO L1: 5 GeV, L3:10 GeV • JT_HI L1:10 GeV, L3:15 GeV • CJT40: L1:40 GeV • Efficiency • standard jet selection, offline pT > 8 GeV • very sharp turn on Efficiency vs jet pT CJT(1,3) CJT(1,5) CJT(1,7) CJT(1,10) L1 Trigger efficiency CJT(1,x) L1 Trigger efficiency CJT(2,x) • L1 single jet efficiencies • ask for one or two hadronic trigger towers (0.2x0.2) above threshold • use -trigger as unbiased reference to measure turn-on • ask for one and only one reconstructed jet in ||<0.7 • L1 hadronic response about 40% low for current data set

  6. ETthresold ETneighbour> 100 MeV or 0.02Ecell NADA: noise reduction • NADA = New Anomalous Deposit Algorithm • identify isolated energy deposits in the calorimeter = “Hot Cells” • Source: electronics, Ur noise, beam splash, cosmics etc • Improve object resolution and ETmiss • Run 1: AIDA • Only examine neighbors in the same tower for Ecell > 10 GeV • 99% efficient, BUT 5-10% misidentification rate • examine all cells with > 1 GeV • remove cells < -1 GeV & > 500 GeV • ET < 5 GeV removed if no neighbor with E > 100 MeV • ET < 500 GeV removed if no neighbor with E > 2% Ecell • high efficiency (90%) and low misidentification • ET > 1 GeV : ~0.5% • ET > 10 GeV : ~0% • on average about 0.8 cells / event

  7. Calorimeter jet (cone) • jet is a collection of energy deposits with a given cone R: • cone direction maximizes the total ET of the jet • various clustering algorithms Jet Finding • correct for finite energy resolution • subtract underlying event • add out of cone energy • Particle jet • a spread of particles running roughly in the same direction as the parton after hadronization

  8. Jet Algorithms: Cone • Run 1 Legacy Cone • draw a cone of fixed size around a seed • compute jet axis from ET-weighted mean and jet ET from ET’s • draw a new cone around the new jet axis and recalculate axis and new ET • iterate until stable • algorithm is sensitive to soft radiation (split & merge) • Improved Run 2 cone • use 4-vectors instead of ET • add additional midpoint seeds between pairs of close jets • split/merge after stable proto-jets found • algorithm is infrared safe

  9. For each object and pair of objects: order all dii and dij: Ifdmin=dij  merge particles Collinear (if R<<1 ) If dmin=dii  jet Resolution parameter (D=1) Soft Jet Algorithms: kT • theoretically favored, no split-merge • to reduce computation time, start with 0.2 x 0.2 pre-clusters • x-section measurement differ from cone-jet (JETRAD) DØ Subjet multiplicity of gluon and quark jets reconstructed using the kT algorithm in pbarp collisions Phys. Rev. D65 052008 (2002) hep-ex/0108054The inclusive jet cross section in pbarp collisions at sqrt(s)=1.8 TeV using the kT algorithm Phys. Lett. B {525}, 211 (2002) hep-ex/0109041

  10. Hadronization effects? • particle jets are more (less) energetic than parton jets with kT (cone) • kT collects more energy • cone looses energy • kT jets are 7 (3)% more energetic at 60 (200) GeV than cone jets: • consistent with HERWIG at high pT, at 2 at low pT applying correction to cone-jets improves agreement between the 2 algorithms

  11. Jet Algorithms: CellNN & Flow • Cell Nearest Neighbor • layer-by-layer clustering starting with EM3 • each local maximum starts a layer-cluster then add in neighbors • energy sharing according to transverse shape parameterization • angular matching of floor clusters • search for minima in longitudinal energy distribution to separate EM and hadronic showers • Energy Flow algorithm • use tracking information to better characterize the contributions from charged particles • in development

  12. CHF EMF HotF n90  Data — MC Jet Selection DØ Run 2 Preliminary • central jets (Run 2 cone, R=0.7) • event quality cuts • number of jets  1 • Etotal in the calorimeter  2 TeV • missing ET  70% of leading jet pT • Zvtx < 50 cm • leading Jet Cuts • Jet pT > 8 GeV (offline cut) • 0.05  EMF  0.95 • CHF  0.4 (0.25 tight) • HotF  10 (5 tight) (HotF = ET1st cell / ET2nd cell ) • n90 > 1 (number of towers that contain 90% of jet ET) • efficiencies from MC • loose: ~100% tight: ~ 98% • ~Flat in  Non-linearity of SCA included in MC

  13. jet Jet Energy Scale correct Jet Energy to the particle level • Eoffsetenergy offset from underlying event, pile-up, noise determined from Min. Bias Events • Rcalocalorimeter response using -jet events: Missing ET Projection Fraction Method • Rshowerenergy contained in jet corrections from MC - energy in cones around the jet axis • depending on jet algorithm! Determination of the Absolute Jet Energy Scale in the D0 Calorimeters. NIM A424, 352 (1999), hep-ex/9805009

  14. E EOFF= EUE +NZB EUE +Enoise+Epile-up Run I: Offset corrections subtract contributions not associated to the high pt interaction: Ur noise, pile-up, multiple interaction, underlying even measured as ET densities D, to be multiplied by the area of a jet in  • measurement of the ET density D in zero bias event • measurement of DUEfrom minimum bias events DUE=DMB-DZBno HC

  15. ICR Run I: Offset corrections Ur noise, pile-up, multiple events underlying event contribution measured for different luminosities dominant error from occupancy dependence depends on s and process associated to a single event  independent of luminosity

  16. Run I: response correction using -jet events ideal calorimeter : jet response (with calibrated ): Ejetmeas: dependent on energy response and resolution, threshold effects and smearing better: E= ET cosh jet

  17. Run I: jet response • comparison of jet response in different cryostat regions • CC ||<0.7 • ICR 0.7<||<1.8 • EC 1.8 <||<2.5 • effect of finite jet resolution at E = 10GeV • lowest response in ICR: int < 6

  18. Run I: EC/CC correction independent of E as EC/CC similar in construction derived from overlap region of CC and EC response at 60<E<180 GeV Fncry/Fscry=0.997 0.003 EC response 2% below CC compared to the ratio of a fit to the 2 response functions

  19. Run I: ICR correction inhomogeneous detector material: correction as function of and ET high ET: jet-jet events low ET: -jet events  or leading jet required to be central (||< 0.5) fit of response as Rjet =  + b ln ET+ b ln (cosh ) correction derived from difference between measurement and the expectation for an ideal detector, extrapolated from fit at ||<0.5 and 2 < ||<2.5

  20. Run I: low ET bias • Etjet > 8 GeV • jet resolution ~50% • migration of low ET jets • jets fluctuating below Etmin are not reconstructed • bias of the response towards higher values • as response determined from Etmiss and , bias correction determined from:

  21. Run I: Response function • fit of the measured response function Rjet(E)=a+b ln E+c (ln E)2 • logarithmic terms justified by non compensation at low E • fit of CC and EC measurement for ET>30 GeV • at highest energy prediction from MC after tuning response on data in measured region • error band derived taking into account correlations

  22. Run I: Showering correction corrects for out-of-cone energy belonging to the jet scales reconstructed jet to particle level: S=Ejet/(Ejet+EshoMC) parameterizations for different cone sizes errors at low energy: offset subtraction; at high energy: stat shower correction depend on jet profiles, but not on s 1% 4% 10% 2.5% 5% 10%

  23. signal:152 M evts bkgd: 47.1 M evts signal: 64.8k evts bkgd: 650 evts /Z+jet QCD (udsg) QCD (cbt) W+jet, Z+X,  Run II: +jet / Z+jet • +jet: Run I method – jet calibration possible up to 250 GeV • Z+jet: lower statistics, but clean sample, useful at low energies, x-check!

  24. peak: 82.6 peak: 86.8 b-jet calibration • naïve reconstruction of Z-mass shows a lower mass for selected b-jets than light quark jets. • energy losses from semi-leptonic b decays (, ) • wider b-jets (due to the large b-mass)

  25. Z bb vs  + b-jet  + b-jet : • high statistics, allows for a tight b-jet selection (b-tagging). • expected number of tagged events: 1.2 M but: sensitive fractional imbalance I= (pT() - ET(jet))/ pT() Zbb: systematics closer to physics processes (H or Top) at high pT resonance mass independent of multiple interactions. but: signal/noise~10-3 requires special trigger (Silicon Track Trigger – operational end 2002)

  26. CDF Run 1: Z bb selection about 120 000 Z  bb events produced in Run 1 expected to be observed ~ 50-100 Trigger: central muon (pT> 7.5 GeV)  5.5 M evts Offline: request 2 tagged (0.7 cone) jets  5479 evts QCD background rejection based on event topology: > Z is produced by a time-like q-qbar anihilation, > QCD produced color flow between initial and final partons > Z is expected to have soft radiation between the jets > background will also have strong radiation between IS and FS partons. http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/ewk/zbb_new.html

  27. CDF Run 1:3ET and 12 Use 2 kinematic variables to discriminate: 3ET : sum of ET of the clusters outside the 2 leading jets 12 : azimuthal angle difference between the 2 jets cuts derived: 3ET < 10 GeV, 12>3 rad

  28. CDF Run 1: Z bb Signal after cuts: S/N=1/6 at the Z mass peak select/antiselect w.r.t. the 2 variables to determine the tagging probability 3.2  exces

  29. CDF Run 1:Likelihood fit Results: MZ=90.0 2.4 GeV Z = 9.4  3.5 GeV NZ=91  30(stat) 19(sys.) Pythia: expect 12414

  30. First Run 2 QCD Physics Dijet mass spectrum at 1.96 TeV Inclusive jet pT spectrum at 1.96 TeV Ldt = 1.9 ± 0.2 pb-1 Ldt = 1.9 ± 0.2 pb-1 Highest 3-jet event ETjet1 : 310 GeV Etjet2 : 240 GeV ETjet3 : 110 GeVEtmiss : 8 GeV Only statistical errors Only statistical errors • not fully corrected distributions: • preliminary correction for jet energy scale(but no unsmearing or resolution effects) • 30-50% systematic error in cross-section • no trigger selection efficiency corrections

More Related