1 / 34

W Mass From LEP

W Mass From LEP. Fermilab Wine and Cheese Seminar 6th October, 2006 Ambreesh Gupta, University of Chicago. Outline . 1 . Introduction - W Boson in the Standard Model of Particle Physics 2 . W mass Measurement - Identifying and reconstructing W’s.

miriam
Télécharger la présentation

W Mass From LEP

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. W Mass From LEP Fermilab Wine and Cheese Seminar 6th October, 2006 Ambreesh Gupta, University of Chicago

  2. Outline 1. Introduction - W Boson in the Standard Model of Particle Physics 2. W mass Measurement - Identifying and reconstructing W’s. - Mass extraction techniques used by LEP experiments 3. Systematic Uncertainties on W mass measurement 5. Summary I will show results from all the four experiments with details on OPAL analyses. Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  3. Standard Model of Particle Physics Our picture of the fundamental constituents of nature There are about 19 (+10) free parameters in the theory to be determined experimentally Standard Model predicts relationship between these parameters. Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  4. W H W W W t (running of a) f Standard Model Relations • Standard Model predicts relation between the parameters; W boson mass(MW) • and Fermi constant(GF), fine structure constant(), Z boson mass (MZ) • : electron g-2 0.004 ppm GF : muon life-time 9 ppm MZ : LEP 1 lineshape 23 ppm • Precision measurements require higher order terms in the theory and help • constraint the unknown pieces. Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  5. Precision EW top-quark mass “predicted” by electroweak corrections prior to direct discovery • The measured W mass precision is such that Top and Higgs loops required for consistency in the Standard Model (SM) •  This gives an indirect inference on the Higgs. •  Better precision on W mass constraints the Higgs • Indirect measurement of W mass • - W mass known to 20 MeV from indirect measurement (LEP1 + SLD +Tevatron). • - A direct measurement of W mass with similar precision is of great interest. • Measurement of the width of W boson can also be carried out at LEP providing further checks on consistency of the SM. Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  6. Large Electron Positron Collider (LEP) LEP I (1989-1993) : Z physics. 18 million Z bosons produced LEP II (1996-2000) : W physics. 80,000 W’s produced. (Energies from 161 GeV – 209 GeV) W’s produced in pairs. Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  7. The Four LEP Experiments ALEPH L3 Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  8. WW Production and Decay at LEP Backgrounds BR ~ 10% WW ll • W’s produced in pairs at LEP • - 700 pb-1/experiment; 40,000 WW BR ~44% WW qql Efficiency Purity l l70%90% qql85% 90% qqqq85% 80% BR ~ 46% WW qqqq Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  9. Event Selection • Event selection primarily based on multivariate relative likelihood discriminants OPAL Very good agreement between expected and observed. Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  10. W Mass at LEP • The WW cross section at s = 2Mw • sensitive to W mass • LEP experiments collected • 10 pb-1 data at s = 161 GeV • Combined Result : • Mw = 80.40  0.21 GeV • Most of LEP 2 data at higher energies - use direct reconstruction • There are two main steps in measuring W mass and width 1. Reconstruct event-by-event mass of W’s 2. Fit mass distribution  Extract MW and W. • However, jet energies poorly measured ( /E ~ 12% ), neutrinos unobserved. Kinematic fitting plays vital role Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  11. Kinematic Fitting • Mass Reconstruction • - Identify lepton and jets (DURHAM) • -- Energy flow techniques • - Kinematic fitting • -- Use LEP beam energy as constraint • -- Total Energy = s; Total Momem. = 0; • -- Additionally, apply equal mass constraint • mw+ - mw- = 0; •  Significantly improved mass resolution • Caveat- Photon radiation will change s s’ (photon energy)  Need good WW4f theory model (~0.5% theory error ) Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  12. Mass Reconstruction • qqqq channel • - Well constrained events • - But, ambiguity in assigning jets to • W’sCombinatorial Background • - 5-jet event: 10 comb., 4-jet: 3-comb. • qql channel • - 1 or 2 constraint kinematics fit • - Golden channel Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  13. 80.33 81.33 Fit Methods • LEP experiments used three likelihood methods to extract W mass and width from the reconstructed mass spectrum. 1.Re-weighting 2. Breit-Wigner 3.Convolution The primary difference between the methods is the amount of information they try to use for the best measurement. • Re-weighting - Weight fully simulated events to create sample with new W mass and width parameter - No external bias correction needed - Need large event sample to derive stable weights Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  14. Fit Methods (continued) Fitted Function (70-88) GeV mass • Breit-Wigner • - Fit to W mass spectrum with Breit-Wigner function • - Width adjusted to account for resolution and ISR effects. • - Bias corrected by comparing to fully simulated MC. • Convolution - P(m1,m2|Mw,Gw)R(m1,m2) - Build event-by-event Likelihood - Maximize statistical sensitivity - Need bias correction as in BW Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  15. Likelihood Variables • - Likelihood built using three variables -- both in qqlv, qqqq channels • ~ 400 events per bin for stable fit • Fit for eight energy point, four channels, then combine => lots of MC needed. • OPAL variables • ALEPH also • 3-d fit 5C fit mass error Hadronic 4C mass 5C fit mass 4C fit mass difference 5C fit mass error 5C fit mass Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  16. Performance of Likelihood Fucntion • Check bias and pulls distributions. . .below a typical example OPAL • Test the central value modeling with bias plot • Test the uncertainty on central value with pull distribution. Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  17. MwMw (Stat.+Syst.) CV 80.416  0.053 RW 80.405  0.052 BW 80.390  0.058 OPAL W mass • Very good agreement between three methods in channel and year • Strong correlation between methods => Combining them had only small stat. gain • CV, which has the smallest expected statistical uncertainty is used as the main method. • Use ofmomentum cut analysismakes significant reductionin FSI uncertainty. • Final W mass and total uncertainty from the three methods on OPAL - Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  18. qqqq combined qql Source 19 5 8 35 79 11 Hadronisation QED(ISR/FSR) Detector Colour Reconnection Bose-Einstein Correlation LEP Beam Energy Other 14 7 10 9 2 10 4 13 8 10 0 0 9 3 44 40 59 Total Systematics Statistical Total 21 30 36 22 25 33 LEP W Mass Channel weights qqlv : 76% qqqq : 22% xs : 2% • The combined preliminary LEP W mass • MW = 80.376  0.025 (stat)  0.022 (syst) GeV • Systematics on W mass (MeV) Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  19. LEP W Width • The combined preliminary LEP W width • W = 2.196  0.063(stat)  0.055(syst) GeV • Systematics on W width qql + qqqq (MeV) Source Hadronisation QED(ISR/FSR) Detector Colour Reconnection Bose-Einstein Correlation LEP Beam Energy Other 40 6 22 27 3 5 19 Total Systematics Statistical Total 55 63 84 Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  20. LEP Beam Energy • LEP beam energy used in event kinematics fit  DMW/MW DELEP/ELEP • Beam energy calibrated using • - Resonant De-Polarization (41- 60 GeV.) • - Extrapolated to LEP II energies NMR probes • - Main systematic error due toextrapolation • Extrapolation checked with • 1. Flux Loop • 2. Spectrometer • 3. Synchrotron Oscillation • Final results on LEP beam energy ( Eur. Phys. J., C 39 (2005), 253 ) • - Reduction of beam energy uncertainty used in earlier W mass combination • - old : DEbeam= 20-25 MeV  DMW = 17 Mev • - new : DEbeam = 10-20 MeV  DMW ~ 10 Mev • -- OPAL Final 9 MeV Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  21. LEP Beam Energy Cross Check with Data • LEP beam energy can be estimated using radiavtive return events - Z mass precisely known - Measured mass in radiative events sensitive to beam energy • Result consistent with zero within experimental errors Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  22. Detector Systematics from MC Modeling • Main Sources • - QED/EW radiative effects • - Detector Modeling • Hadronisation Modeling • - Background Modeling • - Final State Interaction MC modeled to represent data; Disagreements  Systematic error Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  23. Photon Radiation • KoralW’s O(3) implementation adequate, • but misses • - WSR • - interference between ISR,WSR & FSR • KandY includes • - O() corrections • - Screened Coulomb Correction Error ~ 7 MeV Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  24. Raw  Corrected Detector Systematics Jet energy resolution • Z0 calibration data recorded annually provides • a control sample of leptons and jets (~ 45 GeV). • Data/Mc comparison used to estimate corrections for • - Jet/Lepton energy scale/resolution • - Jet/Lepton energy linearity • - Jet/Lepton angular resolution/biases • - Jet mass • Error is assigned from the error on correction Jet energy scale LEP Combined: qqlv qqqq Combined 10 MeV 8 MeV 10 MeV Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  25. Detector Systematics: Breakdown OPAL Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  26. Hadronization Modeling • MC programs (JETSET,HERWIG,ARIADNE) model production of hadrons but difference in particles and their distributions • The difference interplays with detector response - particle assignment to jets - cuts applied to low momentum particles - low resolution for neutral particles - assumptions made on particle masses at reco. • JETSET used by all LEP experiment with parameters tuned with Z peak data systematic shift estimated from shift with other hadronization models. LEP Combined: qqlv qqqq Combined 13 MeV 19 MeV 14 MeV Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  27. Final State Interactions The Basic Problem: If products of hadronically decaying W’s (~0.1 fm) interact before hadronization (~1.0 fm) Can create a mass bias. Two known sources that could potentially bias W mass and width measurement 1.ColorReconnection - color flow between W’s could bias their masses - only phenomenological models exist. - Most sensitive variable to CR is W mass itself 2. Bose-Einstein Correlation. - coherently produced identical pions are closer in phase space. - BE correlation between decay products of same W established - Does the effect exist between W’s? Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  28. Color reconnection • Only phenomenological models exist. - SK1 model produces largest shift  CR strength parameter (ki) • LEP experiments estimate effect of color reconnection • Measure particle flow in the inter-jet regions of the • W’s • - Extreme values of CR disfavored by data • but it does not rule out CR • - A 68% upper limit on ki is used to set a data driven • uncertainty on W mass. • - Combined LEP value of ki = 2.13 • For this Reco. Prob., CR error ~ 120 MeV (OPAL) Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  29. Cuts and Cones: Reducing CR effect • CR affects mostly soft particles between jetschanges jet direction • Re-calculate Jet direction 1.Within cone of radius R 2.Cut on particle momentum P 3.Weighted particle momentum |P| • A,D,L,O use varations of below - OPAL Uses P-cut2.5 GeVfor qqqq - ~18% loss in statistics. • - Much reduced CR systematics • 125  41 MeV (ki =2.3) OPAL • - A worthwhile tradeoff! • - ALEPH28 MeV, L338 MeV Final CR error in qqqq 35 MeV Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  30. BEC in WW events • 2.5 GeV P-cut to redefine jet direction also reduces BEC W mass bias - OPAL (default) 46 MeV (P-cut) 24 MeV. • LEP experiments have measured BEC between W’s - Using “mixing method” - A,D,L,O: only a fraction of Full BEC seen in data (0.1713) • A 68% upper limit on BEC fraction seen in data (OPAL), used to set W mass systematics MW = ( 0.33 + 044)  MW (Full BEC) = 19 MeV • L3 18 MeV, ALEPH 2 MeV Final BEC error in qqqq 7 MeV Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  31. Results: qqqq and qqlv channels Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  32. Results: LEP W mass and Width mW (LEP) = 80.376 ± 0.033 GeV GW (LEP) = 2.196 ± 0.083 GeV Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  33. W’s as Calibration Sample at LHC “Yesterdays sensation is today’s calibration and tomorrows background” - Telegdi • W’s from top decay are foreseen to provide the • absolute jet scale. • - Fast simulation studies in the past showed feasibility • Select samples with a four jets and lepton • (electron,muon) with two jets b-tagged. • estimated 45K events from 10 fb-1 • Cross check with Z/ +Jet sample • Sattistics not the issue but understanding • the physics of the events. Fermilab Wine & Cheese

  34. Summary • Final results from all the four LEP experiments • Final LEP combination will use combined FSI error •  Much reduced FSI error in final results • A new preliminary LEP combination • Total LEP W mass uncertainty decreased to 33 MeV • It took about five years after LEP shut down to get final W mass • results from all the four experiment. Now it is up to Tevatron to • better the W mass precision before LHC turns on. Fermilab Wine & Cheese

More Related