1 / 44

DiPhoton + MET: Towards Unblinding of the 5 fb -1 Analysis

DiPhoton + MET: Towards Unblinding of the 5 fb -1 Analysis. Bruce Schumm 29 Feb 2012. Reminder about 1 fb -1 analysis New strategy: A B C analyses Optimization MET Blues Background estimates Unblinding of A, preparation for B unblinding. 1 fb -1 Analysis: Thumbnail Sketch

Download Presentation

DiPhoton + MET: Towards Unblinding of the 5 fb -1 Analysis

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. DiPhoton + MET: Towards Unblinding of the 5 fb-1 Analysis Bruce Schumm 29 Feb 2012 • Reminder about 1 fb-1 analysis • New strategy: A B C analyses • Optimization • MET Blues • Background estimates • Unblinding of A, preparation for B unblinding

  2. 1 fb-1 Analysis: Thumbnail Sketch • (First-order) signal selection straightforward: •  2 tight isolated photons with ET  25 GeV • ETmiss  125 GeV • Optimization based only on ETmiss cut value • Optimization geared towards high-mass Gluino for broad range of bino masses (50 GeV to Mgluino)

  3. Analysis Improvements Overlap Criteria - Reverse /e overlap criterion (have medium e kill ) - e  fake rate goes from 0.049-0.168 to 0.025-0.075 - 13% signal efficiency loss Conversion pixel requirements - Conversion tracks can have no pixel hits - e  backgrounds reduced by 43% (42% for events with one conversion; 61% for events with two conversions) - 13% signal efficiency loss Conversion categories - Division into three conversion categories suggested - No benefit if background is ~0

  4. Optimization: General Principles • Two scales characterize GMSB production/decay • Missing energy (mostly bino mass; also bino boost)  MET • Total energy, including photons (sparticle mass)  HT • Analysis A: High-mass sparticle, high-mass bino • Large MET, moderate HT • Analysis B: High-mass sparticle, low-mass bino • Moderate MET, large HT • Analysis C: SPS8 (direct gaugino production; sparticles too heavy) • Moderate-to-large MET; NO HT (most like 1 fb-1 analysis) • Also: 1 fb-1 backgrounds observed to have photons close to MET •   (photon to MET) cut explored for A,B,C analsyes

  5. C

  6. Optimization of A, B, C Points: Results Optimization results: All use photon ET > 50 GeV. Figure of merit rather flat in   use either 0.5 or no cut Drop unjustified significant digits

  7. Background: Definition of “QCD” Control Samples We model the ETmiss distribution of selected events with no intrinsic missing energy via two control samples: QCDg and QCDgg. A “control photon” satisfies the loose, but not the tight, selection requirement for two shower quantities: the shower shape in the shower core {fracs1} and the shower width {weta1} in the first sampling of the electromagnetic calorimeter. QCDg has one such control photon; QCDgg has two.

  8. QCDg, QCDgg, and gg – MET_SimpRefFinal No resemblance of control sample eTmiss shape to that of the signal 2/16/2012 10

  9. QCDg, QCDgg, and gg – MET_LocHadTopo N.B.: Studies with +Njets MC suggest high-ETmiss tails a bit larger for SimpMetRefFinal  Propose to use LocHadTopo for ETmiss 2/16/2012 11

  10. BACKGROUNDS E- Control Sample (Penn) QCDg Control Sample (DESY) Overlap ? (DESY) Missed? (SCIPP)

  11. EW Background from e- control sample Brig, Jack N.B.: “Signal” is e-

  12. Scale factors from Ze/Zee Multiply these by “signal” numbers on previous page

  13. Pseudo-photon control sample (Peter, Martin) SIGNAL BLINDED FOR MET > 100 GEV • QCDg distribution provides shape and tails • scale to signal (gamma-gamma) in low-MET region (ETmiss<20 GeV) SIGNAL BLINDED FOR MET > 100 GEV SIGNAL BLINDED FOR MET > 100 GEV

  14. Background Summary *Includes a 0.2 event contribution from “irreducible” backgrounds (two real photons) that are negligible in A and B regions; needs to be checked for C Missed/Overlapped backgrounds study: No significant corrections suggested (up to smallish uncertainties)

  15. A word on the 5 fb-1 reach (not fully-optimal analyses) A: ggm_900_800   -> LL: 142.4, sig: 16.9, #S: 21.3, #B 0.01 ggm_1000_800 -> LL: 39.8, sig: 8.9, #S: 7.1, #B 0.01 ggm_1100_800 -> LL: 10.8, sig: 4.7, #S: 2.4, #B 0.01 ggm_1200_800 -> LL: 3.4, sig: 2.6, #S: 0.9, #B 0.01 C: sps8_170 -> LL: 22.2, sig: 6.7, #S: 11.9, #B 0.9 sps8_180 -> LL: 14.5, sig: 5.4, #S: 8.9, #B 0.9 sps8_200 -> LL: 6.6, sig: 3.6, #S: 5.3, #B 0.9 sps8_220 -> LL: 2.7, sig: 2.3, #S: 3.0, #B 0.9 sps8_240 -> LL: 1.2, sig: 1.5, #S: 1.8, #B 0.9 B: ggm_900_50   -> LL: 45.1, sig: 9.5, #S: 10.3, #B 0.05 ggm_1000_50 -> LL: 13.6, sig: 5.2, #S: 4.0, #B 0.05 ggm_1100_50 -> LL: 2.7, sig: 2.3, #S: 1.2, #B 0.05 ggm_1200_50 -> LL: 0.4, sig: 0.85, #S: 0.3, #B 0.05 Limits for 1 fb-1 about 820 GeV for analysis-A-like scenario and ~145 TeV for SPS8 trajectory

  16. Unblinding Procedures • Obtain Ed-Board approval (done 2/21/12) • Examine HT sidebands to build confidence in background modeling, especially without the  cut (B analysis) • Since B sidebands (up to HT=1100 GeV) are almost A signal region (HT > 600 GeV) explore and unblind A before exploring B sidebands

  17. HT Sidebands for Analysis A: 200 < HT < 400 Includes  cut MET Cut

  18. HT Sidebands for Analysis A: 400 < HT < 600 Includes  cut MET Cut

  19. Analysis A Unblinded Includes  cut No signal for MET > 200; Should set strong limit for high Bino mass (note that 200 GeV cut has avoided one background event)

  20. Analysis B Blinded HT > 1100 No  cut

  21. HT Sidebands for Analysis B: 500 < HT < 800 500 < HT < 800 No  cut

  22. HT Sidebands for Analysis B: 800 < HT < 1100 800< HT < 1100 No  cut How well do we understand these backgrounds? Should we fear not using the  cut?

  23. e- Control Sample (EW Bkgds); No  Cut Scale by e rate to get expected background

  24. e- Control Sample (EW Bkgds); No  Cut Scale by e rate to get expected background

  25. 200 < HT < 1100 Sideband: Expected (assuming no signal) vs. Observed Rates With  cut

  26. 200 < HT < 1100 Sideband: Expected (assuming no signal) vs. Observed Rates  cut removed

  27. Summary • Three analyses geared towards high&low mass bino, SPS8 • High-mass bino analysis: 0 signal events • Low-mass bino ready to unblind; SPS8 requires further background studies (underway) • Verbatim 2011 analysis applied to 5 fb-1  150-200 GeV increase in limits • 2012 analysis improvements  250-400 GeV increase • CMS did better than ATLAS with 1 fb-1 because of • More favorable interpretation of GGM model • Luck • but per fb-1, our analysis was more sensitive

  28. BACKUP

  29. Also: Limit of  > 145 TeV set on SPS8 SUSY Breaking scale Analysis background-limited; sparticle cross section goes as ~M-9  reoptimize!

  30. Photon Et Optimization (1 fb-1 Analysis) Helenka Choose Cut of 50/50

  31. Cross-check with MET distribution from Zee (background real ?)

  32. No QCDg above 100 GeV  Less than 1 event at 95% CL

  33. Overlap Between QCDg and EW backgrounds Martin

  34. Missed Backgrounds (?) Dan • Since our “QCD” backgrounds are estimated by normalizing control samples (QCDg, Zee) to low-MET signal, they should be comprehensively accounted for • “EW” (W,top) backgrounds estimated via e- control sample  Assumes all W,top contributions have at least one e fake • Is this true? If not, what is character of the “missed” component? • Might the “missed” component in fact be incorporated into the QCD control sample (pseudo-photon) estimate?

  35. According to MC, what fraction of EW background is due to e fakes? MC

  36. Of the 25% that is “missed” 18.9% + 47.5% = 66.4%  2/3 is expected to be reflected in the pseudo-photon sample This 2/3 may well be the source of the “EW-contamination” in the pseudo-photon sample (cross-check underway This component is neither missed nor double-counted!  Add “QCD” and “EW” backgrounds linearly (values and errors)

More Related