1 / 28

Studies for GMSB with photons

Studies for GMSB with photons. Shilei Zang University of Colorado, Boulder. CU CMS Meeting, 18th Mar. 2008. Outline. GMSB with prompt photons Trigger study Background study. GMSB with photons. G auge M ediated S upersymmetry B reaking models

aileen
Download Presentation

Studies for GMSB with photons

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. Studies for GMSB with photons ShileiZang University of Colorado, Boulder CU CMS Meeting, 18th Mar. 2008

  2. Outline • GMSB with prompt photons • Trigger study • Background study

  3. GMSB with photons • Gauge Mediated SupersymmetryBreaking models • NLSP (neutralino)  LSP (gravitino) + photon • Prompt decay (ctau=0) g jet • Experimental signature q q jet • high pT photons • large MET due to gravitinos • multi-jets … p p q … jet q jet g

  4. Trigger Study

  5. Efficiency and rate for default triggers RS S H RD S S, RS S, RS, D S, RS, D, RD S, RS, D, RD, H all D VH

  6. Optimize trigger thresholds • Usually the cuts are determined bye eye to give reasonable values of efficiency and rate. Threshold, how to set? • Problem:How to optimize the trigger thresholds with figures of Efficiency vs. Rate in an objective way ?

  7. Physics Analysis • Selection criteriaare optimized to maximize statistics (Optimize relative error of BR; Significance; 90% CL limit, etc) • Selection criteria are optimized to minimize the mass uncertaintyin mass measurement (e.g. top mass measurement) • Artificially reduced the error of physical result! • Not Really Blind !!

  8. Information theory • N events, the amount of information :log2 N. • N is number of messengers; • physical results are the meaning of information taken by such N messengers. • For BR, number of messengers is the meaning of info.; • For width, mass, … , meaning of info. is taken by the messengers; depends on the kinematics (not just on the number of events). • Good property: log (xy)= log(x) + log(y).

  9. Amount of information: log(NS ),log(NB ) • Signal efficiency ε and background efficiency b • After the cut: log(NSε), log(NB b) • Reductions of information: -log(ε), -log(b) • Ratio of the reductions: log(ε)/ log(b) • the smaller log(ε)/ log(b), the better • log(ε)/ log(b) <a  ε > ba (0< ε, b, a ≤1). • We can use statisticslog(ε)/ log(b) to optimize trigger thresholds! • Good property: Blind Analysis! • log(ε)/ log(b) depends on the amount of information; does not depend on the meaning of information.

  10. a=0.01 ε a=0.05 ε a=0.02 a=0.1 (1.,1.) a=0.2 a=0.3 a=0.5 Trigger Study ε= ba a=0.7 a=1.0 b log(ε)/ log(b) <a  ε > ba . b (0.,0.) 1-b b MVA K ID ε ε

  11. How to deal such a problem in Physics Analysis? • Solution: log(ε)/ log(b) to optimize selections with finalεand b after the kinematics cut. • Our method will give worse physical results, but they are blind analysis and can be trusted.

  12. log(ε)/ log(b) vs. Cuts (default EMHighEt) Min=0.129 0.129 • Et>80; Iecal<5; Ihcal<12; Itrack<4 • Itrack is better than Iecal and Ihcal. 0.035 Min=0.0047 0.102 Min=0.101 0.017 • Each figure is plotted with other cuts applied.

  13. log(ε)/ log(b) vs. Cuts (proposed EMHighEt) Min=0.174 • Et>60; Itrack<2 • Itrack is better only when the Itrack cut point <5 0.022 Min=0.190 0.068

  14. Et>40GeV Relaxed Single Photon candidates Et>40GeV Et>40GeV

  15. Results • Propose two new triggers: • p-EMHighEt (pH): Et>60GeV, Itrack<2 • p-EMVeryHighEt (pVH): Et>120GeV • Propose to use: pH, pVH, D for our physics. 2.14 Hz

  16. Propose two new triggers: • p-EMHighEt (pH): Et>60GeV, Itrack<2 • p-EMVeryHighEt (pVH): Et>120GeV • Propose to use: pH, pVH, D for our physics. • Isolation is useful at low Et region to suppress bkg , but bad in high Et region for our signal. • Track isolation (cut position <6) is better than other isolaitons • GMSB points with small Lambda parameter (GM1b) have more events with two signal photons at generator level, so the Double trigger is helpful for them.

  17. Further possible improvement • D: Et>20; Iecal<2.5; Ihcal<8 or 6; Itrack<3 (0.26 Hz) • mD: Et>20; Itrack<3 (0.90 Hz) 0.64 Hz • With 3 photon triggers, for GM1e, it’s difficult to reach 95% efficiency within 5.5 Hz! • For GM1e, it’s easy to reach 92% or 93% efficiency, but it’s difficult to reach 94% or 95% efficiency!! • 98.6% events of GM1e have signal photons (>0) at generator level; after SusyAnalyzer, only 93.5% events have reconstructed photons.

  18. Efficiency and Rates for each group of triggers pH, pVH, D pH, pVH, mD 10: pH, pVH 11: pH, pVH, RS 12: pH, pVH, RD 13: pH, pVH, D 15: pH, pVH, mD 0: H, VH 1: H, VH, RS 2: H, VH, RD 3: H, VH, D

  19. Background Study

  20. Signal sample: selected data to yield physical results. Signal MC: to get signal efficiency. Bkg MC: to stduy the background if they can simulate well. Control samples: Large data samples (then small errors) 1) to study the background; different cuts but same distribution shape with signal sample. 2) to extract good parameters (machine, condition, etc). 3) together with MC, to study efficiencies and the systematic errors of cuts. CDF (2007) 1.2 fb-1

  21. CDF (2007) 1.2 fb-1 Analysis of Diphoton+MET • Diphoton signal sample: • Both photons are required to pass a standard set of photon ID cuts. (Iso-Ecal<2GeV; Iso-Track<2GeV ; Et>13GeV) • Diphoton control sample: • Both photons pass loose photon ID cuts and at least one photon fails the standard cuts. (Iso-Ecal<3GeV; Iso-Track<5GeV; Et>13GeV) • Other cuts for both of diphoton signal and control sample: • vertex; suppress cosmic rays; • reject beam halo; MET and jets directions; • …..

  22. There are 3 major sources of background: • Inclusive e+gamma events with real intrinsic MET. Electron-photon mis-identification: W(enu)+gamma; W(enu)+jet (jet mis-identified as a photon); e+gamma events scaled by the Et dependent probability of an electron faking photon • Non-collision events : cosmis rays: out-of-time gamma+gamma events; beam halo: beam halo events. • QCD events with fake MET: gamma+gamma, gamma+jet, jet+jetevents; MET due to energy mis-measurement in the calorimeter. 1) Soft unclustered energy (underlying event, multiple interactions): diphoton control sample and Zeesamples with no jets. 2) Jet’s contribution to MET: Get a jet energy resolution from gamma+jet or Z+jet samples; for diphoton signal events, predict the MET distribution due to jets: MET(i)=Et –Et(smear).

  23. DZero (2004) 0.26fb-1 GMSB in Diphoton+MET • Diphoton signal sample: • Both photons are required to pass: EM ID (shower shape, isolaiton); Et>20GeV. QCD background: same cuts as diphoton signal, except the shower shape. Use the number of evnets with MET<15 GeV in QCD and diphoton sample to predict QCD bkg rates for high MET. (assume all MET <15GeV is contributed from QCD) Electron background. Electron-photon mis-identification: W(enu)+gamma; W(enu)+jet (jet mis-identified as a photon); e+gamma events scaled by the probability of electron faking photon. QCD to diphoton; QCD to e+gamma; e+gamma total; e+gamma to diphoton;

  24. DZero (2007) 1.1fb-1 GMSB in Diphoton+MET • Diphoton signal sample: • Both photons are required to pass: EM ID (shower shape, isolaiton); Et>25GeV. QCD background (hh sample): same cuts as diphoton signal, except the shower shape and isolation. Use the number of evnets with MET<12 GeV in QCD and diphoton sample to predict QCD bkg rates for high MET. (assume all MET <12GeV is contributed from QCD) Electron background. Electron-photon mis-identification: W(enu)+gamma; W(enu)+jet (jet mis-identified as a photon); e+gamma events scaled by the probability of electron faking photon. QCD to diphoton; QCD to e+gamma; e+gamma total; e+gamma to diphoton;

  25. Efforts for GMSB photons analysis for the moment: • Photon identificaiton: Virginia • QCD control sample: Shilei • EW control sample: Rome + Bernadette • Beam halo and cosmic rays:

  26. QCD bkg study for GMSB is in progress. • To use the CDF methods: 1) use gamma+jet or Z+jet MC to get the jet energy resolution function; 2) use QCD MCto test that the MET model works. (Ben’s suggestion) • (Difficulty: it’s better not use jet resolution for the early CMS data; the only thing we can ask of jets is a cut on the scalar sum of all jets’ Et.) (Yuri’s opinion) • To use Dzero methods: CMS do not have shower shape cut, do we have enough isolation space between trigger and analysis to get enough control events? (need MC to test yes or no) • If yes  Does/How the MET shape depents on the isolation cuts? • If no any other cuts (photon Et, number of jets, ..) to get the control sample? Does/how the MET shape depends on these cuts? • CDF methods in 2004?

  27. Summary • CMS note of trigger study is being approved. • We propose 3 triggers for GMSB photons. • We find a new method for trigger study, and physics analysis. • QCD bkg study for GMSB is in progress. • Further understand Dzero and CDF methods. • Test these possible methods with MC samples at CMS with the common GMSB analysis codes. Thank you!

More Related