1 / 4

Few thoughts about MET systematics

Few thoughts about MET systematics. We could calculate the MET systematics comparing the different MET calculations (the “MET steps” in Silvia talk) ?? To calculate MET_RefFinal systematics in a consistent way with all other objects in the event:

juliet
Download Presentation

Few thoughts about MET systematics

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. Few thoughts about MET systematics • We could calculate the MET systematics comparing the different MET calculations (the “MET steps” in Silvia talk) ?? • To calculate MET_RefFinal systematics in a consistent way with all other objects in the event: • apply systematics error to electrons, jets , etc and recalculate MET, subtracting the original objects and adding back the modified ones • have to take into account that the out-of-cone correction is not applied for EtMiss • EtMiss has also the MET_CellOut contribution (from cells in Topoclusters outside reconstructed objects) • the systematics on MET_CellOut can be evaluated comparing the different calculations of this term (EM scale, H1, LH, minijet calibration….) D. Cavalli

  2. Comparing results from different EtMiss calculations D. Cavalli

  3. Compare results from different MET calculations We have different EtMiss calculations (the so-called “steps”). What can we learn comparing results from different EtMiss alculations? Could we evaluate the EtMiss systematics? Effect of EtMiss>20GeV cut on Z  events for different EtMiss calculations diff~8% not considering the uncalibrated EtMiss: Topo, Base 44553 149705 +8% +1.6% +0.02% 8991 -0.01% -36% -36% D. Cavalli

  4. Compare results from different MET calculations Z  reconstructed invariant masses for different EtMiss calculations Final: 306 LocHad: 330 Refined: 323 mtt Topo: 272 Calib: 158 diff~7% in the acceptance in mass bin, not considering the uncalibrated EtMiss (Topo) and Calib (2s cut)… Evts in mass bin 66-116 GeV D. Cavalli

More Related