1 / 14

Higgs momentum scale studies

Higgs momentum scale studies. Peter Kluit, MATF/MCP meeting 6 December /11 November/ 24 October. Introduction. Data sets mc12_8TeV.208001.Pythia8B_AU2_CTEQ6L1_pp_Jpsimu4mu4.merge.AOD.e1331_a159_a173_r3549/

guiliaine-connor
Télécharger la présentation

Higgs momentum scale studies

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. Higgs momentum scale studies Peter Kluit, MATF/MCP meeting 6 December /11 November/ 24 October

  2. Introduction Data sets mc12_8TeV.208001.Pythia8B_AU2_CTEQ6L1_pp_Jpsimu4mu4.merge.AOD.e1331_a159_a173_r3549/ mc12_8TeV.147807.PowhegPythia8_AU2CT10_Zmumu.merge.AOD.e1169_s1469_s1470_r3542_r3549/ data12_8TeV.periodE.physics_Muons.PhysCont.DESD_ZMUMU.t0pro13_v01/ data12_8TeV.periodB.physics_Muons.PhysCont.AOD.t0pro13_v01/ Event selection MCP ID track selection For Zs pT > 25 both combined muons period B pT > 25 and pT > 7 GeV -> measure the 10-45 GeV range

  3. Z mass scale plots: EC A

  4. Z mass scale plots: Barrel

  5. Z mass scale plots: EC C

  6. Z mass scale plots: all public (?)

  7. Momentum/mass scale conclusions Both MS and ID and CB are about -0.1% off on the Z mass scale In the MS Barrel the shift is less than -0.05% while the EC is shifted with about -0.15% It is not clear that there is room for a dZ mass/ dpT linear component. A scaling of the B field would give a linear component. The MS Barrel looks pretty good. But can we do better? For the MS I think that the observed scale comes from imperfect modeling of the Eloss. To study the Eloss component Ludo suggested to study the p SA – p ID in eta and pT bins. Here I moved to pT SA – pT ID plots (more stable). Requiring 3 or more stations. See next slides.

  8. Eloss pT SA – pT ID To get some feeling for systematics the top sectors (sin(phi)>0) are plotted Transition region has largest “jump”

  9. Eloss pT SA – pT ID Too low stats to say anything In this pT range

  10. Eloss pT SA – pT ID Too low stats… CSC region is off scale

  11. Eloss pT SA – pT ID Sufficient stats Barrel moved 100 MeV EC 200 MeV Trans 200 MeV CSC region moved by 400 MeV

  12. Eloss pT SA – pT ID Sufficient stats Changes take place between pT 15-30 and pT 30-40 GeV

  13. Eloss pT SA – pT ID Sufficient stats Small Changes take place between pT 30-40 GeV pT 40-100 GeV EC ~50 MeV

  14. Eloss conclusions We observe that the Eloss in the different pT region varies when we go from pT 15-30 to pT 30-40 GeV: Barrel Et 100 MeV EC (T) Et 200 MeV CSC Et 400 MeV We might profit from a better Eloss tune. As the study with the “top vs all sectors” shows an Et modeling with a systematic precision of 50 MeV is not easy…

More Related