1 / 23

AcerMC and ISR/FSR systematics at ATLAS

This workshop discusses the impact of different models on top mass reconstruction using tt~. The workshop examines the parameters treated, interesting examples, and the systematics related to QCD activity. The study focuses on the AcerMC and Pythia generators for showering and underlying event modeling. Various analysis cuts and procedures are used for top mass reconstruction and the distributions are compared.

jstump
Download Presentation

AcerMC and ISR/FSR systematics at 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. Top Physics Workshop (Grenoble 2007) AcerMC and ISR/FSR systematics at ATLAS Liza Mijovic, Borut KersevanJozef Stefan Inst. Univ. of Ljubljana • ATLAS approach: • Generator level studies • Parameters treated • Interesting examples

  2. Impact of different models • Recently a study of top mass reconstruction using tt~ was done using: • MC@NLO (Herwig+Jimmy) • AcerMC (Pythia – new showering and UE model) • Full detector simulation • The observed discrepancy caused quite a few raised eyebrows.. We cannot know offhand which answer is correct!

  3. Impact of different models cont’d • The first thought was that NLO corrections impact the event shapes more than anyone suspected... • ...But the difference turns out to be purely parton-shower related! • We just plugged the AcerMC events into Herwig and.. • The difference becomes really small.. We cannot know offhand which answer - Herwig/Pythia showers and UE -is correct! We need the data!

  4. QCD-activity related systematics • From the above example one can see that the predictions are by no means unique; using the standard division one needs to have a look at: • Initial state radiation • Final state radiation • Underlying event modeling • PDFs, etc... • I think I don’t need to stress that the precision in top measurements at the LHC will be systematics-dominated.. • At ATLAS the UE is handled by tuning the available models to the Tevatron data so it was excluded from these studies.

  5. Strategy • First thing to estimate is the prediction range the models on the marked provide – and the experimentalists can tune on the data. • In this respect HERWIG is rather unflexible: It has excellent theoretical basics but very few parameters in the shower activity that are allowed to have at least some uncertainty.. • Pythia is in this respect much more flexible so at least as a start a detailed study was made on how (and how much) we can ‘push around’ the Pythia showering activity. • AcerMC + Pythia with varying parameters was thus used to check on the prediction uncertainties w.r.t. the QCD (parton-)showering activity. • Studies first done on generator/truth level only. • In each variation typical/simple analysis cuts and procedures were used for top mass reconstruction and the distributions were compared. • Semileptonic decay selection criteria: • pT > 40 GeV, |eta| < 2.5 for 2 b-jets and at least two light jets. • pT > 20 GeV for the lepton from W, isolation requirement ~cone(lepton, any jet)>0.4 • No cuts on missing ET . • No jet energy rescaling. • W reconstruction: truth / 2 light jets with MJJ closest to MW and MJJ < 120 GeV. • The JJB1,2 combination with highest pT chosen as the top candidate.

  6. Pythia ISR parameters ATLAS uses the Pythia new pT-ordered showering and UE model! • A lot of switches: • MSTP(62): level of coherence • MSTP(70): regularization scheme, pT ->0 PARP(62), PARP(81), PARP(82) • MSTP(72):max. pT for FSR of ISR partons • PARP(61) : Λ(QCD) • PARP(64) : evolution scale factor • ISR master switch, ME corrections ...

  7. Rregularization scheme: PARP(81) Default : PARP(81)=1.9 GeV=D PARP(81)=D/2 PARP(81)=2*D t-tbar rel. pT # of truth-jets

  8. Rregularization scheme: PARP(81) Default : PARP(81)=1.9 GeV=D PARP(81)=D/2 PARP(81)=2*D b jet / b quark E ratio light jet / light q. E ratio

  9. Rregularization scheme: PARP(81) Default : PARP(81)=1.9 GeV=D PARP(81)=D/2 PARP(81)=2*D top mass: truth W + bjet top mass: W(jets)+bjet

  10. PARP(61): Λ(QCD) Default : PARP(61)=0.192 GeV PARP(61)=0.1 GeV PARP(61)=0.4 GeV t-tbar rel. pt truth-jet number

  11. PARP(61): Λ(QCD) Default : PARP(61)=0.192 GeV PARP(61)=0.1 GeV PARP(61)=0.4 GeV high-pt truth jet n. top mass: W(jets)+bjet

  12. PARP(64): evolution scale factor Default : PARP(64)=1=D PARP(64)=D/2 PARP(64)=2*D t-tbar rel. pt top mass: W(jets)+bjet

  13. Pythia FSR parameters • Tunable & relevant parameters for the new showering: • PARJ(81): Λ(QCD) (for external processes) (D=0.25 GeV) • PARP(71): scale of the hard scattering (D=4) • PARJ(82): mass cut-off below which partons don’t radiate (D=1 GeV)

  14. PARJ(81): Λ(QCD) • Top mass: final W + b jet • AcerMC + Pythia: • Parj(81) = 0.25 GeV • Parj(81) = 0.14 GeV • MCatNLO+Herwig • Reconstruction: True W from + truth b-jet. MT(AcerMC) < MT(AcerMC-FSR) < MT(MC@NLO) The FSR change in Pythia goes in the right direction!

  15. PARP(71) (scale of the hard scattering) • b quark pt, number of high-pt jets, pt of the jets, pt of b-jets

  16. PARP(71) • top mass (final W + bjet) • PARP(71) has no/little effect

  17. Pythia ISR and FSR parameters PARAMETER TOP MASS ISR low high • MSTP(70): reg. scheme 0 : PARP(62) f 1 : PARP(81) f 2 : PARP(82) f • PARP(61) : Λ(QCD) g • PARP(64) : evol. Factor f FSR • PARJ(81) : Λ(QCD) f • These parameters were then combined into two samples which lower/increase the reconstructed mass to obtain endpoints..

  18. Systematics sample proposal • AcerMC + Pythia, new showering • Minimum top mass: • 2*PARJ(81) (Λ(QCD) , FSR) • 0.5* PARP(61) (Λ(QCD) , ISR) • 2*PARP(62) (pt -> 0, kt cut-off, ISR) • Maximum top mass: • 0.5*PARJ(81) (Λ(QCD) , FSR) • 2* PARP(61) (Λ(QCD) , ISR) • 0.5*PARP(62) (pt -> 0, kt cut-off, ISR)

  19. B-fragmentation studies

  20. B-fragmentation studies II

  21. B-fragmentation studies III

  22. B-fragmentation studies IV The overall effect ofvarying b-fragm. Parametersgives ~stable results. However: Need to compare with other models like Herwig or EvtGen

  23. Further studies/plans • I don’t have time to go through all of the things we had done but to summarize other results: • The impact of QCD uncertainties on the ttbar cross-section measurements (efficiency) seems to be small (percent order) so not crucial at the initial measurement stages. Further investigation ongoing... • Studies on the impact of PDF uncertainties is planned. • Impact of other models like EvtGen on b-tagging and top reconstruction needs to be studied. • We need to develop methods on extracting the QCD model parameters from the data and/or validate different showering models. • A lot of work...

More Related