1 / 48

Simulation of the H →ZZ (*) →4l Channel in ATLAS

Simulation of the H →ZZ (*) →4l Channel in ATLAS. A. Di Simone 1 , M. Moch 2 , A. Nisati 2 , D. Rebuzzi 3 , S. Rosati 2 , G. Corcella 4. 1 INFN-CNAF and CERN, 2 INFN Roma, 3 INFN Pavia and Pavia University, 4 Roma University La Sapienza.

brick
Download Presentation

Simulation of the H →ZZ (*) →4l Channel in ATLAS

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. Simulation of the H→ZZ(*)→4l Channel in ATLAS A. Di Simone1, M. Moch2, A. Nisati2, D. Rebuzzi3, S. Rosati2, G. Corcella4 1INFN-CNAF and CERN, 2INFN Roma, 3INFN Pavia and Pavia University, 4Roma University La Sapienza Acknowledgements toG. Polesello, B. Mele and M. Grazzini Workshop sui MonteCarlo, la Fisica e le Simulazioni a LHC Frascati, 24 October 2006

  2. Outline • Overview • Generators studies for H→ZZ(*)→4l • Comparison Pythia-Herwig using the ATLAS defaults • Herwig-Pythia tuning • Matrix Element corrections to Herwig Parton Shower • Analysis of H→ZZ(*)→4l channel in the full ATLAS simulation (shortly) • Selecting Higgs events • Analysis results (preliminary) • Trigger Aware Analysis • Summary Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  3. Event generators in ATLAS We try to use as many generators as reasonable • Pythia, Herwig (+Jimmy), Hijing, Charbydis, TopRex, Tauola/Photos (both with Herwig and Pythia), Sherpa, Alpgen (+MLM matching), MC@NLO, AcerMC, MadEvent, CompHEP, Phojet, … • MC Generators are incorporated in the common framework for the ATLAS offline software, athena, via interfaces • Pythia and Herwig can be runned directly, setting the generator parameters in the athena configuration script files • All the other generators should be first run instandalone mode and the output file is passed to Herwig or Pythia for the showering/hadronization/etc. • the events must be made with a generator version that is compatible, i.e. which • supports the Les Houches interface • Generated events are converted into a common format, HepMC,and made persistent for downstream use by the simulation, G4Atlas (geant4 ATLAS full simulation ) or Atlfast (ATLAS fast simulation) Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  4. Generators for H→ZZ(*)→4l in ATLAS [B. Mellado, G. Unal, S.L. Wu, ATLAS-COM-PHYS-2004-062] Signal and most of the backgrounds evaluated at LO Large backgrounds rates → need a good background understanding • The generator choice, their settings, the configurations, the datasets, etc. are agreed among the collaboration • e.g. ATLAS setting for Pythia • PDF choice for LO generators: CTEQ6L1 (CTEQ6M1 for higher order) → first order running s ,no K factors, complex scenario + double gaussian matter distribution (UE tuning), longitudinal fragmentation function, etc. Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  5. PY-HW comparison for H→ZZ(*)→4l: motivation Need to know production cross sections and distributions of discriminating variables as precisely as possible Higher Order QCD corrections for the Higgs generation process are available • HO corrections do not reduce only to an overall factor to the cross section normalization.. • Rescaling by an overall K factor gives correct inclusive cross sections, but not necessarily correct kinematics and acceptance • HO corrections imply non-trivial changes in the final state Reweighing the LO results for the signal and the backgrounds of H→ZZ(*)→4l channel according to NLO calculation implemented in MC@NLO (full NLO QCD corrections + Parton Shower) which uses Herwig for the showering and the hadronization The understanding of the differences between PY (used to generate the Higgs signal and backgrounds) and Herwig is crucial if we want to study the NLO effects with MC@NLO Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  6. MonteCarlo versions • Herwig (HW) 6.510 + Jimmy 4.0 • Process (1)1600 gg/qqbar→H • Process (1)1900 qq→q’q’WW/ZZ→q’q’H (H decay to ZZ forced – Z decay to /ee forced) • Pythia (PY) 6.403 • Process 102 gg→H • Process 123-124 qq→q’q’WW/ZZ→q’q’H (H decay to ZZ forced – Z decay to /ee forced) • ATLAS default settings • (athena release 12.0.3) • LHAPDF version 5.0: CTEQ6L1 LO with LO S [J. Pumplin, D.R. Stump, J. Huston, H.L.Lai, P. Nadolsky, JHEP 0207 (2002) 012] Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  7. Comparison of PY and HW - ATLAS defaults • Cross sections • Cross section times branching ratios for the H→ZZ(*)→4l process at mH = 130 GeV (errors < 0.01 fb) • Cross section for the Higgs productions at mH = 130 GeV (errors < 0.01 pb) Clear difference both in the cross sections and in the branching ratios Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  8. Comparison of PY and HW - ATLAS defaults • Cross section for the Higgs ggF production (errors <1.5%) Differences approximately constant over all the considered mass range.. Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  9. Comparison of PY and HW - ATLAS defaults • Branching ratios • Branching ratios for H→ZZ(*) inPY and HW as a function of mH, including results from HDECAY [A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, M. Spira, hep-ph/9704448] Differences only in the mass range where one Z is off-shell Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  10. Comparison of PY and HW - ATLAS defaults Higgs and Z mass, pT and pseudorapidity distributions normalized to unit mH = 130 GeV - ggF • Differential distributions Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  11. Comparison of PY and HW - ATLAS defaults Higgs and Z mass, pT and pseudorapidity distributions normalized to unit mH = 130 GeV - VBF Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  12. Understood differences: Higgs mass • Higgs mass @130 GeV – ggF • The small peak at 130.2 GeV in HW is the contribution of the qqbar→H production which is included in the IPROC= 1600 • The visible mass peak shift in HW is due to a FORTRAN bug in the precision in number manipulations : • through the computations from the parton momentum to the Higgs momentum and mass, precision can be lost and at the end one founds mH + some MeV (4.326 MeV @ mH = 130 GeV) Temporary fixed by hand Higgs mass plot after the fixes Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  13. Understood differences: Z mass Z masses distributions - mH = 130 GeV • Differences HW-PY in the amount of events in the 40-80 GeV range • Investigation of the H→ZZ* decay • PY and HW implements different calculations for the (H→ZZ*) • HW uses the finite formula • PY uses a differential expression which needs an integration in the two Z mass space but allows also the decay in Z*Z* • HDECAY has an options to switch between the two formulas above [W.Y. Keung, W.J. Marciano, Phys.Rev. D30 (1984) 248] [R.N. Cahn, Rep. Prog. Phys 52 (1989) 389] Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  14. Understood differences: Z mass • Filtering for ZZ* by selecting events with one Z on-shell, i.e. in the range [-n, n ] around mZ – fraction of selected events The region 40-80 GeV for HW is populated only by the tails, for PY they are also events with both the Zs off-shell Here cut at 5 for both PY and HDECAY To be understood why the three programs give different results for (H→ZZ*) Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  15. PY-HW parameter tuning the number of nominal resonance width above which the Breit-Wigner factor in the cross section is set to vanish • We would like to find a tuning for HW which reproduces the PY distributions • in the follow we refer to “HW tuned” as HW configured using the above PY default parameters Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  16. PY-HW tuning of QCD parameters Tuned on e+e- data • for hadron-hadron collisions the PY default for Sis overwritten by the S of the PDF set (default in athena 12.0.3, CTEQ6L1 LO with LO S) This corresponds to S (mZ) = 0.118 when calculated at NLO But PY default uses the LO calculation, which leads to 0.1298 [M. Spira, hep-ph/9510347] • HIGLU configured with PY parameters and setting the values of S to the same values as PY or HW defaults the value of S fully accounts for the PY overestimation of the ggF cross section Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  17. HW tuning on PY • if we want to reproduce the PY cross section predictions, i.e. the PY value for S,we have to configure HW with the following parameters This set of parameters is leading to the same value of S as in PY (with a NLO computation) cross sections of ggF Higgs (errors <1.5%) Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  18. Comparisons of PY and HW tuned for VBF • Cross section for the Higgs VBF production (errors <1.5%) With HW tuned, differences are compatible within the statistical error Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  19. PY tuning • PY allows to configure the QCD parameters with large flexibility Allow the user to configure QCD parameters Second-order running S  value for hard interactions  value for space-like shower (ISR)  value for time-like shower (FSR)  value for resonance decay • this set of parameters gives a value for S = 0.1198, more compatible to the world average cross sections of ggF Higgs (errors <1.5%) the default choice, MSTP(3) = 2, used in the Higgs production in ATLAS, causes the  value to be set accordingly to the parton-distribution-function parameterizations, based on the PDF set selected Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  20. To be understood: branching ratios •  tot of the Higgs, which enters into the BR calculation Total width of the Higgs boson for PY and HW (not tuned) as a function of the Higgs mass, in comparison with HDECAY • PY has two processes (H→gg and H→Z*) which are not implemented in HW • Removing them,  tot decrease to 4.15 MeV @ mH = 130 GeV Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  21. To be understood: branching ratios • Under investigation also the contributions of the different  part from the H decays *HDECAY tuned - implements NNNLO (~ s3) corrections to (H→bb) and NNLO terms for the running mass • Both PY and HW have i.e. resumming the LL (with LO S) • But HW has also contributions NLO to tot and to mb(mH), depending on 1 • we expect that removing these NLO corrections yields the same part as PY Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  22. Matrix Element corrections to HW PS • In HW, the parton shower emission is completely suppressed in the zone corresponding to hard and large-angle parton radiation (dead zone) • The HW cascades are supplemented by ME corrections for a full description of the physical phase space • The radiation in the dead zone can be generated according to exact first-order ME (neglecting multiple hard emissions) • ME corrections for ggF Higgs production (not yet in the HW release) • whenever the HW shower generates an emission which is the hardest so far, it is corrected according to the exact ME • Comparison with HW default (tuned) and with PY, which implements ME correction to the first emission Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  23. Comparison with HqT [G. Bozzi, S. Catani, D. deFlorian, M. Grazzini, Phys.Lett.B 564(2003)65 and Nucl.Phys.B 737(2006)73] Reproducing the same configuration as the right plot: S(mZ) =0.1120 (2 loop) - mH = 130 GeV – CTEQ6M1 • Integral of the resummed calculation [M. Grazzini, hep-ph/0512025] [C. Anastasiou, K. Melnikov, F. Petriello, hep-ph/0501130] *MRST2004 s=0.1129 Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  24. Comparison with HqT (preliminary) Logarithmic contributions to the Higgs pT HqT tuned with PY parameters, to get a comparison with PY and HW tuned + ME Discrepancies at high qT: • the programs use different scale in S to generate events with pT > mH through the fixed order calculation We have to set the same scale to get a comparison among the four programs Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  25. Summary and Plans: Generator Studies • We started studying the comparison between HW and PY for the H→ZZ(*)→4l channel • Small fixes in HW for the Higgs mass shift and to remove qqbar→H contribution • Using the ATLAS default for the two MC, differences in terms of cross sections, branching ratios, total Higgs width • Large difference between PY and HW in the QCD parameter choices • PY default for hadron-hadron collisions (which we are using in ATLAS) leads to an S value several  far from the world average • Tuning HW allows to reproduce the PY results in terms of cross sections • Also a PY tuning (that may be further refined) is found, which allows to get an S in reasonable agreement with the PDG value and with HW value • ME corrections to HW PS: we just started the comparison with PY and HqT • Plans: • Comparison with HqT at large pT • NLO with MC@NLO, comparison also on the Higgs pT • Understanding the differences PY-HW in the Higgs partial widths and in the branching ratios • Comparison HW-PY for the ZZ background Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  26. Real life versus ATLAS full simulation LHC Generated events are plugged in a full ATLAS Simulation chain Real events Generated events Interaction with the detector materials Full Simulation Simulation of the material effect Simulated ATLAS detector Simulated hits Signal in the subdetectors Simulation of the read-out electronics Trigger + DAQ Pile-up Digits/RDOs Readout output Physics Analysis Event Generator Generated events Reconstruction ESD/AOD/TAG Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l AnalysisSummary

  27. Analysis of the H→ZZ(*)→4l channel in ATLAS • Purpose of this H→ZZ(*)→4l study is to prepare the analysis of ATLAS data as they will be at day-1 of the data taking • Uses and develops the physics analysis tools in athena • Re-evaluates the expected performance estimated at the times of the ATLAS Physics TDR • Focus on detector performance • Only studies on full-simulation samples • Include the full trigger chain in the analysis • This work is included in the ATLAS software framework and integrated within the Higgs working group activities • Results will appear in an ATLAS-CSC (Computing System Commissioning) document • The analysis performance are going to be revaluated with the “as-built” detector, including misalignments, calibrations, deformations, realistic effects, full pileup, etc. Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l AnalysisSummary

  28. Selecting Higgs events • Selection similar to the Physics TDR, very loose preselection: • all reconstructed leptons with pT>6 GeV and ||<2.5 • First selection applied to reconstructed leptons quality • Kinematic cuts (for mH=130 GeV) • two leptons with pT>20 GeV and ||<2.5 • one pair of opposite-charge leptons (same flavor) with invariant mass in a window mZ15 GeV • the other pair of leptons with an invariant mass >20 GeV • Higgs mass in a 2 window • Impact parameter d0 cut (against Zbbbar background) • z0 resolution will be very important with pileup: identify primary vertex out of minimum bias pileup • Lepton isolation energy (against Zbbbar and ttbar backgrounds) Cut on leptons: knowledge of the exact NLO distributions is fundamental Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l AnalysisSummary

  29. Selecting Higgs events (cont’d) Effect of the aforementioned selections on signal and the main backgrounds Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l AnalysisSummary

  30. Expected signal and background (preliminary) Expected events for 30 fb-1 -Results LO – no K factors missing qqbar→ZZ background in the TDR Two on-shell Z production becomes critical at 180 GeV mH (GeV) Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l AnalysisSummary

  31. Trigger Aware Analysis • So far, kinematic cuts are applied to offline-reconstructed objects (electrons and muons), which should satisfy typical trigger configurations → the trigger system coverage is not fully accounted Trigger Aware Analysis = physics analysis including the results of the full trigger slices (for both m and e) → see A. Nisati’s talk tomorrow • Possible trigger menu for • H→ZZ(*)→4l including only LVL1 • efficiencies (in %) for: • all events (filter: 4-leptons with pT>5 GeV and |h|<2.7) • events after all H4l offline • selection cuts (kinematic cuts + • isolation + impact parameter cuts) • Errors are ~0.3% (~0.5%) Ongoing also the LVL2 and EF integration Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l AnalysisSummary

  32. Summary and Plans: H→ZZ(*)→4l analysis in ATLAS • We set up a tool for a detailed H→ZZ(*)→4l analysis • The analysis algorithm runs within the ATLAS software framework and uses the ATLAS physics analysis tools • Performance studies and comparisons with the Physics TDR • The same code can be applied to the first real data: ready to analyze the first data of the experiment • Complete the studies on all relevant backgrounds, re-evaluate the significances, taking into account the NLO calculations • Final results should take into account the “as-built” simulation, the “real detector” will affect the physics observables • without a complete simulation of the detector we cannot understand the physics processes Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  33. Backup Slides

  34. The H→ZZ(*)→4l channel • Most promising signature for the discovery of the SM Higgs for • 130 GeV < mH < 2mZ and dominant channel for mH > 200 GeV • Branching ratio H→ZZ(*) • from 3.8% @ mH=130GeV to 30.7%@ mH=300GeV • Production channels at LHC • Gluon-gluon fusion (ggF) • Vector boson fusion (VBF) • Signature: • 4 high pT isolated leptons from the primary vertex Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  35. HIGLU predictions [M. Spira, hep-ph/9510347] • HIGLU configured with PY parameters with S(MZ) =0.1158 The agreement with HW is very good.. Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4 Analysis Summary

  36. To be understood: partial widths • Under investigation the contributions of the different  part from the Higgs decays • From BR(H →ZZ(*)) and  tot at different masses, evaluation of (H →ZZ(*)) • Larger differences for (H →W+W-)but especially for  (H→bbbar) and  (H→ccbar) * Tuned with PY parameters and allowing also Z*Z* events w.r.t HW default, differences are within the statistical errors Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4l Analysis Summary

  37. ATLAS Higgs discovery potential in H→ZZ(*)→4l Overview Generator Studies H→ZZ(*)→4 AnalysisSummary

  38. ATLAS software full offline chain • Generation – use generators to produce events • Simulation – run products through detector • Digitization (with/without pile-up with minimum bias and cavern background events) – digitize hits • Reconstruction - reconstructs particles, jets, tracks etc. • Preparation of the reconstructed data, stored in structures called AODs, Analysis Objects Data • Analysis For all of these steps, we use Athena, the common framework for the ATLAS offline software Overview Generator Studies ATLAS Simulation H→ZZ(*)→4 Analysis Summary

  39. Real life versus simulation Real life Event Generator Generated events Simulated ATLAS detector LHC Real events Interaction with the detector materials Signal in the subdetectors Trigger + DAQ Reconstruction ADC/TDC output ESD/AOD/TAG Overview Generator Studies ATLAS Simulation H→ZZ(*)→4 Analysis Summary

  40. Simulating the ATLAS detector • Fast Simulation: Atlfast • No particle propagation, nor interaction with the detector material • Only the basic information on the detector acceptance • Gaussian smearing (on the MC truth information) with resolutions measured in full simulation studies • Full Simulation G4Atlas (geant4 simulation of the ATLAS detector) • High level of details and precision • Electronic noise, dead channels, dead time, misalignment and deformations • Event overlapping due to pile-up with mininum bias and cavern background • Detector responses validated and tuned with: • Test beam data • Today: in situ calibration data with cosmics • In the next future: halo muons, calibration data from LHC collisions (Z→μ+μ-,e+e-, π0→γγ; …) • We want to be able to analyze data of the day-0 Timing: one complete G4Atlas physics event takes ~800 s Four to five orders of magnitude difference full/fast simulation Overview Generator Studies ATLAS Simulation H→ZZ(*)→4 Analysis Summary

  41. Real life versus simulation Fast simulation LHC Real events Generated events Interaction with the detector materials Simulated ATLAS detector Signal in the subdetectors Fast Simulation Trigger + DAQ ADC/TDC output AOD Event Generator • Atlfast • Jet reconstruction in the calorimeter, momentum/energy smearing for leptons and photons, magnetic fields effects and missing transverse energy • List of reconstructed jets, isolated leptons, photons and muons and expected missing transverse energy • (optionally) the list of reconstructed charged tracks Reconstruction ESD/AOD/TAG Overview Generator Studies ATLAS Simulation H→ZZ(*)→4 Analysis Summary

  42. Full simulation of the ATLAS experiment • The ATLAS full simulation uses geant4 for particle tracking into the detector, evaluating all possible interactions the particle could be submitted to • The geometry description is provided by an external service which builds modularly the ATLAS subdetectors reading from external databases • The geometry is under constant development, and there exists several versions of the detector descriptions • amongst them also misaligned (and deformed) geometries, to check the effect of the “real detector” on the physics observables • the detector description and the simulation detector response are extremely accurate Without a complete and deep simulation of the detector we cannot understand the physics processes

  43. ATLAS fast and full simulation events Atlfast G4Atlas detailed showering and clustering models, simulation of detector electronics, events pileup, etc. parameterized resolutions and particle identification efficiency Focus on simplicity and velocity Overview Generator Studies ATLAS Simulation H→ZZ(*)→4 Analysis Summary

  44. Lepton AOD • AOD objects contain all the information necessary for the analysis: • Quality flags, 4-vectors, isolation energies, impact parameter… • Calo clusters and reconstructed tracks parameters and covariance matrices • Electrons: • Access to the results of the electron Id cuts • Momentum from the Inner Detector, energy from the calo measurement • Muons: • Access to both algorithms available • Combined or “LowPt” muons (hits or segments associated) • Access to the single tracks from inner detector and muon spectrometer for combined muons Overview Generator Studies ATLAS Simulation H→ZZ(*)→4 AnalysisSummary

  45. Mass Resolution 2e2m 4m H Mass Resolution (GeV), MH=130 GeV, Z mass constraint Overview Generator Studies ATLAS Simulation H→ZZ(*)→4 AnalysisSummary

  46. Muon Reconstruction in ATLAS • Tracks are back-extrapolated to the IP • Parameters corrected for energy losses and multiple scattering • Energy loss ~3 GeV at h=0 • Look for match with tracks reconstructed in the ID • Inner Detector in a Solenoidal Field of 2 T Muon resolution vs pT

  47. Trigger Aware Analysis: electrons • Cuts applied at Level-1 selection: • e15i EM cluster ET>11 GeV • e25i EM cluster ET>21 GeV • e60 EM cluster ET>51 GeV • Isolation cuts (for e15i and e25i): • isolation in ring around 2x2 trigger tower cluster core in EM < 3 GeV • leakage into 4x4 and 2x2 trigger towers behind the EM cluster <2 GeV • Single electron efficiencies vs pT • Using CSC samples (ZZ*/g*4l or HZZ*4l) • True electron from theAOD truth container, select onlye within |h|<2.5 15 GeV Threshold • Accessing Level-1 results for electrons and muons

  48. Trigger Aware Analysis: muons • Dedicated detector systembased on RPC (barrel) andTGC (endcap) • 3-dimensional coincidencesbetween hits in both space and time • Accessing Level-1 result from the LVL1_ROI container in the AOD • Single Muon efficiencies • Barrel and endcap together • Plateau:86% for LowPt82% for High Pt (20 GeV) – also external station in the coincidence 10 GeV Threshold

More Related