1 / 44

Jet Energy and Resolution at the CDF-Run II experiment

Jet Energy and Resolution at the CDF-Run II experiment. Monica D’Onofrio ATLAS-IFAE meeting, 9/15/2006. Outline. Introduction CDF experiment and calorimeter Jet Energy Scale correction: method Calorimeter response h -dependent corrections Multiple interactions

muncel
Télécharger la présentation

Jet Energy and Resolution at the CDF-Run II experiment

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. Jet Energy and Resolution at the CDF-Run II experiment Monica D’Onofrio ATLAS-IFAE meeting, 9/15/2006

  2. Outline • Introduction • CDF experiment and calorimeter • Jet Energy Scale correction: method • Calorimeter response • h-dependent corrections • Multiple interactions • Underlying event and Out-of-cone Energy • Cross check of jet energy scale (photon/Z+jet data) • Other calibration signals Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  3. Motivation (1) • Knowledge of Jet Energy Scale (JES) is fundamental for hadron colliders • All physics processes involve jets that span a wide ET range [0,√s/2] • Important for SM measurements … Inclusive jet cross section Jet Energy Scale uncertainties are dominant for high PT jets Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  4. Missing ET Multiple jets Missing ET Motivation (2) • … also most of Non-Standard Model signatures (i.e. squark-gluino production) involve jets and Missing Transverse Energy (MET)  MET must be corrected for jet energy measurements. • Procedure to determine JES and uncertainties is not settled yet in ATLAS and CMS  Experience from CDF as example Correction ~ 12% at low MET (from Xavier’s) Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  5. Tevatron and CDF@RunII Highest-energy accelerator currently operational CDF Peak luminosity  above 2.0 *1032 cm-2 s-1 Integrated luminosity/week  about 25 pb-1 CDF: ~1.5 fb-1on tape • Silicon microvertex tracker •  Excellent tracking efficiency • Solenoid • High rate trigger/DAQ • L2 trigger on displaced vertices • Calorimeters and muons Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  6. CDF Calorimeter • Central and Wall ( |h|<1.2 ): • Granularity: Df × Dh= 15° × 0.1 (~ 800 towers) • Non compensating •  non-linear response to hadrons • Rather thin: 4 interaction lenghts • Small amount of noise • Resolutions: • EM energies (g,e): s/ET = 13.5%/√ET+1.5% • HAD energies(p±): s/ET = 50%/√ET+3% • Plug (1.2<|h|<3.6): • Similar technology to the central • Resolutions: • - EM energies (g,e): s/E = 16%/√E+1% • - HAD energies (p±): s/E = 80%/√E+5% • Thicker than central: 7 interaction lenghts Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  7. Calorimeter calibration: EM energy • Check calorimeter response: • Use test beam (from 1980s!) and single particles measured in-situ to understand absolute response • Check time dependence • For EM energy response use: • MIP peak when possible • (at about 300 MeV) • Ze+e- mass peak stability • Set absolute EM scale • in central and plug Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  8. Calorimeter calibration: Hadronic Energy • For hadron energy response use • Minimum Ionizing Particles (MIP): • J/ and W muons • Peak HAD calorimeter: ~ 2 GeV Also Minimum bias events: - E.g. N towers (ET>500 MeV) Syst. Uncertainty related to Calorimeter Calibration ~ 0.5% Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  9. Jet reconstruction • A jet is a composite object: • complex underlying physics • depends on jet definitions • Use different kind of Jet algorithms: • - Cone algorithms (JETCLU and MIDPOINT) • - KT algorithm • Corrections on Jet Energy Scale (JES) for • different effects: • Instrumental effects: • - response to hadrons • - poorly instrumented regions • - Multiple p-pbar interactions • Physics effects: - Underlying event - Hadronization Time Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  10. CDF Jet Energy Scale Method Different correction factors: • (frel)Relative Corrections  Make response uniform in h : all corrections are then referred to the central region • (MPI)Multiple Particle Interactions  Energy from different ppbar interaction • (fabs)Absolute Corrections  Calorimeter non-linear and non-compensating PT jetparticle(R) = [ PT jetraw(R)  frel (R) – MPI(R)]  fabs(R) • Additional corrections to get to parton energy: • (UE)Underlying Event • Energy associated with spectator partons in a hard collision • Hadron-to-Parton correction(historically defined as Out-Of-Cone) PT parton(R) = PT jetparticle(R) - UE(R) + OOC Systematic uncertainties are associated with each step Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  11. Calorimeter simulation • Use MC simulation to determine Jet Corrections • MC needs to • Simulate accurately detector response to single particle (E/p). CDF uses: • GEANT to track generated particles through the detector • Gflash for fast EM and HAD shower simulation, using parametrizations of longitudinal and lateral shower profiles • Describe jet fragmentation: MC tuned on data • Tuning based on in-situ CDF data(dedicated triggers) • E/P response as a function of particle momentum p. • Lateral profile shower Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  12. Single particle response Test beam In situ: Select ‘isolated’ tracks Measure energy in tower behind them Dedicated trigger Bgk subtraction Tune simulation to describe E/p distribution at each p Single particle response simulation Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  13. Single particle response simulation • Jet composition: • ~ 70 % charged particles • - 10% protons • - 90% pions • 30 % neutral pions (gg) • - EM response hadrons • Remaining difference data/simulation  taken as syst. uncertainty Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  14. Uncertainties on calorimeter simulation Improvement possible with higher statistical samples Total uncertainties: Sensitive to 0.9x0.9 = 81% inner part of the tower.  For tower boundaries: additional 10% uncertainty Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  15. Lateral profile • Measure E/p signal in 5 towers adjacent in h • signal defined as 1×3 strip in φ • Plot E/p vs. relative eta for 5 towers • In Gflash, use formula for lateral profile • EM and HAD calorimeter probe different parts of the hadronic shower excluding 90° crack E/p vs ηrel (Central) Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  16. Fragmentation • MC simulation needs to reproduce well data: • Due to non-linearity of the calorimeter, • non trivial correlation N particles and PT track spectra: • - one 10 GeV pion: ~ 8 GeV • - ten 1 GeV pions: ~ GeV • Very important a good understand of track efficiency • Measurement of jet shape is fundamental Integrated jet shape Data/MC different = Systematic uncertainty ~ 1% Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  17. CDF Jet Energy Scale Method Detector effects correction: (frel)Relative Corrections Make response uniform in h (MPI)Multiple Particle Interactions Energy from different ppbar interaction (fabs)Absolute Corrections Calorimeter non-linear and non-compensating PT jetparticle(R) = [ PT jetraw(R)  frel (R) – MPI(R)]  fabs(R)

  18. Relative Corrections • Jet Corrections are relative to the central calorimeter: • Central (0.2<|h|<0.6 jets) ~1 by definition (reference) • Difference Data/MC mainly in the forward region  Depends on ET jets considered cracks Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  19. Multiple Interactions • Overlapping interactions can overlap the jet • Number of extra interactions depends on luminosity • LHC • Low lumi (L = 1× 1033 cm-2 s-1): <N>=2.3 • High lumi (L = 1× 1034 cm-2 s-1): <N>=23 • Tevatron • L = 2× 1032 cm-2 s-1: <N>=6  Offset depending on number of interactions Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  20. Multiple Interaction corrections • Linear correlation between number of interactions and number of vertices • Define random cones in the central region (0.2<|h|<0.6) and determine average • transverse energy associated to a cone • Cone-based method: should improve to make it more general (KT?) For cone R = 0.7, <ET> = 1.06 GeV Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  21. Jet corrections to particle level (absolute) • Monte Carlo simulation used to compare measured (calorimeter) jets and particle (hadron) jets. • Depends on MC simulation and how well data are reproduced, and on fragmentation • Main uncertainties due to calorimeter simulation Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  22. Absolute Correction • Almost independent on jet cone size. • Depends on transverse momentum: calorimeter response is ~ 70% for 25 GeV/c jets, ~ 90% for 400 GeV/c jets. Absolute correction factor Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  23. Cross-check using prompt photons • Photons are well measured in EM calorimeter • Complications: • number of events at high ET very low • From D0 measurement, 40 evt. with L=1 fb-1 and ETg > 300 GeV • Background due to p0 • Purity 30-80 % for [20-100] GeV photon transverse energy range • In CDF: use photon+jets (but also Z+jets) for cross check and to evaluate OOC corrections and JES systematic uncertainty due to Data/MC differences. Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  24. Data • Pythia • Herwig g (Z) + jet pT balance • ET leading jet > 25 GeV • ET (second jet) < 3 GeV • Df (Jet-g) > 3 Sensitive to radiation effects when allow second jet: Herwig farther away from jet cone pT balance: Agreement Data/MC within 3% Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  25. Z-jet pT balance • These events allow us to reach lower PT than photon+jet and also cross check photon+jets results. • Selection • two e(m) with ET>18 GeV (pT>20 GeV) • 76 < M ee(mm) < 106 GeV • ET leading jet > 25 GeV • ET (second jet) < 3 GeV • Df (Jet-Z) > 3 Similar Herwig behaviour for Z+jet w.r.t. g+jet but less visible Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  26. Model-dependent corrections • Underlying event (UE) and Hadron-to-Parton (Out-of-cone, OOC) energy corrections used only if need parton energy • Modeling are required, difference MCs as systematic uncertainties. • Method might be different depending on analysis (top mass reconstruction, Higgs boson searches) • Parton transverse momentum: PT parton(R) = PT jetparticle(R) - UE(R) + OOC Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  27. Underlying event • Particle jet could have contributions note related to hard interaction: • Beam-beam renmants • Initial state radiation • MC tuned on Data (as Pythia Tune A) • Use di-jet events Will be much harder at the Tevatron!!! Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  28. Out-of-Cone Correction • OOC energy: energy escaping the cone radius • Gluon radiation (FSR) • Obtained from Pythia di-jet samples: • Ratio PTparton / PT jet particle • Similar performance Pythia and Herwig • Systematic uncertainties from photon+jet events: • Assume PTg = PT jet corr. • Difference Data/MC of energy inside annuli around jet axis taken as systematic uncertainty Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  29. JES Systematic uncertainties Total systematic uncertainties for JES  between 2 and 3% as a function of corrected transverse jet momentum High Pt: Dominated by calorimeter simulation uncertainties Low Pt: Dominated by MC/data uncertainties Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  30. Possible improvements • Absolute energy scale: • Better simulation translate in lower systematic uncertainties: • Old simulation (response as function of track momentum): • [0-12] GeV  2.5%, [12-20] GeV 3%, [20,+]  4% • New simulation (under study): • 2% expected in the whole p range This would reduce absolute JES uncertainty from 1.8-2.5% to1.4% • Specific b-jet correction • Using Zbbbar or photon+b • Jet resolution for higgs analysis • H1 algorithm: use tracking information for energy determination of charged hadrons Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  31. Extraction of signal • b-jet energy scale, tools to extract DiJet mass resonances (Hbb) • Good signal to study/improve/confirm jet resolution • Trigger on two displaced tracks+ two 10 GeV jets , L = 333 pb-1, 21.5 M events • DisplacedVertex tag, SecondryVertex Mass to select b-jets, kinematic cuts to improve S/B • Fit signal and background (direct QCD production) templates, for varying JES DiJet Invariant mass GeV Further Studies: Extract b-specific correction Evaluate systematic biases. Improve Zbb modeling Stat error is ~2%. Selected Events 85730 Zbb 3394±515 (4%) Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  32. Jet Resolution (H1 Algorithm) • Apply relative corrections to make response flat in η. • Use tracks (0.5<Pt<15 GeV, Pt ordered), extrapolate to face of calorimeter • Select towers within Δη=0.1 and Δφ=0.2. (Central towers are 0.1x0.26.) Take the nearest tower one if none within these limits. • Order selected towers in distance from the track. • Remove towers such that corresponding removed energy is always less or equal to the energy of the track. Energy already removed by a previous track is not considered by subsequent tracks. • Jet is sum of all quality-selected tracks and remaining towers in the jet. • Scale the final jet energy • There is improvement (10-15%) but need much more work for optimization. Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  33. Calibration Peaks from W’s or Z’s Very difficult to see inclusive decays of W and Z in jets Best possibilities: - W from top decays - Z in bb decay mode Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  34. Summary and Conclusions • CDF tunes simulation and derives corrections from MC  different procedures can be chosen • Many ‘calibration’ signals: • MIP peak, Zee and Minimum Bias for calorimeter • Di-jet balance for relative response in cracks and plug • Isolated tracks for calorimeter response • Photon-jet balance for cross-check and systematic uncertainties • 3% systematic uncertainty achieved • Can do better: we are improving calorimeter simulation and trying to better understand difference Data/MC  expect to lower JES uncertainty to 2% Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  35. Back-up

  36. Jet Algorithms Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  37. Clusters using different Jet algorithms Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  38. Lateral profile Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  39. Lateral profiles scan Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  40. Calorimeter simulation • Use MinBias or isolated track trigger • Select good tracks within central 81% of tower. • No extra track within 7x7 towers, no ShowerMax cluster. • Measure E/p in data • Tune Gflash parameters • Difference in data and simulation is taken as uncertainty. E(HAD)/p E(EM)/p E(Total)/p After BG subtraction More statistics! Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  41. Photon+jet balancing Herwig Pythia Data -0.371 -0.317 -0.360 Δφ> 3, No 2nd jet cut • PT balance between photon and jet is about 3% different among data and MC. Δφ>3 , second Jet Pt<3 GeV Herwig Pythia Data -0.328 -0.296 -0.306 Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  42. Photon/Z – jet balance Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  43. Calorimeter simulation improvements • Tower-phi boundaries improved with new Simulation from 10% uncertainty to less than 5% • Old simulation • New Simulation  Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

  44. JES on top mass with in-situ Wjj Monica D' Onofrio, ATLAS-IFAE meeting

More Related