slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Inclusive Jet Cross-Sections in Neutral Current DIS Events Using the Breit Frame PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Inclusive Jet Cross-Sections in Neutral Current DIS Events Using the Breit Frame

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 14

Inclusive Jet Cross-Sections in Neutral Current DIS Events Using the Breit Frame - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 115 Views
  • Uploaded on

Inclusive Jet Cross-Sections in Neutral Current DIS Events Using the Breit Frame. Analysis Status. Marcos Jiminez Claudia Glasman Juan Terron Universidad Autonoma de Madrid. Jeff Standage York University Thomas Schoerner Hamburg University. Contents

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Inclusive Jet Cross-Sections in Neutral Current DIS Events Using the Breit Frame' - poppy


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Inclusive Jet Cross-Sections in Neutral Current DIS Events Using the Breit Frame

Analysis Status

Marcos Jiminez

Claudia Glasman

Juan Terron

Universidad Autonoma de Madrid

Jeff Standage

York University

Thomas Schoerner

Hamburg University

  • Contents
  • Cross-section & NLO:Data ratio comparisons
  • Differences between two analyses – so far

QCD Meeting, 10th March 2005Jeff Standage, York University

slide2

Q2

JT/OG

(DESY 02-112)

96-97

JS/TSS

98-00

MJ/CG/JT

99p-00

QCD Meeting, 24th March 2005Jeff Standage, York University

slide3

ET(jet)

JT/OG

(DESY 02-112)

96-97

JS/TSS

98-00

MJ/CG/JT

99p-00

QCD Meeting, 10th March 2005Jeff Standage, York University

slide4

η (jet)

JT/OG

(DESY 02-112)

96-97

JS/TSS

98-00

MJ/CG/JT

99p-00

QCD Meeting, 10th March 2005Jeff Standage, York University

slide5

Differences Between JS/TS and MJ/CG/JT Analyses

JS/TS

MJ/CG/JT

  • Analysis code
  • Orange/phantom 2004a(.1,.2)Private EAZE job
  • Orange variables for cutsRelease 2004a.1 (pro)
  • Zufos/cells for offline jet finding
  • Noise Suppression (noise02s.fpp)
  • ecut(1) = 0.08ecut(1) = 0.10
  • ecut(2) = 0.14ecut(2) = 0.15
  • imbacut = 0.7imbacut = 0.9
  • CAL corrections (escale03.fpp)
  • Individual RCAL cell correctionsNo RCAL cell by cell corrections
  • Global corrections - Global corrections -
  • FCAL HAC: 0.941FCAL HAC: 0.95
  • FCAL EMC: 1.024FCAL EMC: 1.04
  • BCAL HAC: 1.0962BCAL HAC: 1.08
  • BCAL EMC: 1.05315BCAL EMC: 1.04
  • RCAL HAC: 1.022RCAL HAC: 1.025
  • RCAL EMC: 1.022RCAL EMC: 1.025

QCD Meeting, 10th March 2005Jeff Standage, York University

slide6

Differences Between JS/TS and MJ/CG/JT Analyses

JS/TS

MJ/CG/JT

  • Vertex
  • Cell position corrected forCell position corrected for z-vertex only.
  • X,Y,Z vertices
  • Lepton beam energy
  • Orange: Ee = 27.56 GeVEe = 27.5 GeV
  • Offline: Ee = 27.52 GeV
  • Isolation (cone) cut
  • A cut is put on the electron candidate such that the total energy not associated with the candidate in a radius of R is eta-phi space is less than 10%. This removes photoproduction events and events where a jet remnant is falsely identified as the positron.
  • R = 0.8R = 0.7
  • Sinistra electron
  • Electron corrected for dead material.Uncorrected Sinistra candidate is used.
  • Orange variable: Siecorr(3,1)Corresponds to SiCalEne(1)
  • Event variables
  • Orange variables being used, All values calculated directly from cells
  • e.g. SiQ2da(1), SiCeHMom(4,1) information.
  • Evidence of further orange corrections/differences.

QCD Meeting, 10th March 2005Jeff Standage, York University

slide7

Summary

  • Analysis differences lead to ~10% difference in events selected
  • Claudia had 992 events that I have rejected or have no jets.
  • I have 825 such events that Claudia doesn’t.
  • Analysis differences lead to complete discrepancy in number of jets in each event.
  • Have over-ridden orange routines to implement her analysis criteria.
  • Of those 992 events are still losing 20:
  • (i) 1 event: Q2 difference (2 cells have different energy).
  • (ii) 2 events: cosGammaHad.
  • (iii) 11 events: isolated cone cut (after moving to 0.7).
  • (iv) 6 events have no jets (still to look into jet finding).
  • not using orange jets!

QCD Meeting, 10th March 2005Jeff Standage, York University

slide8

Further Progress

  • Have over-ridden orange routines to implement her analysis criteria.
  • Of those 992 events are still losing 20:
  • (i) 1 event: Q2 difference (2 cells have different energy).
  • (ii) 2 events: cosGammaHad.
  • (iii) 11 events: isolated cone cut (after moving to 0.7).
  • (iv) 6 events have no jets (still to look into jet finding).
  • not using orange jets!
  • Reasons
  • Q2 difference due to different cell assignment to some cells used in the event (e.g. cells 1162,1178 CG: FEMC, JS: FHAC):
    • CG uses phantom routine, ccwhat.fpp, to determine cell type.
    • JS using orange which uses these lines of code:
    • fbr = 1 + Caltru_CellNr/16384
    • ! Determines forward/barrel/rear (1,2,3)
    • eh = min(2,max(1, mod(Caltru_CellNr,16)/2 -4))
    • ! Determines EMC/HAC (1,2)

QCD Meeting, 24th March 2005Jeff Standage, York University

slide9

Further Progress (cont …)

  • Have over-ridden orange routines to implement her analysis criteria.
  • Of those 992 events are still losing 20:
  • (i) 1 event: Q2 difference (2 cells have different energy).
  • (ii) 2 events: cosGammaHad.
  • (iii) 11 events: isolated cone cut (after moving to 0.7).
  • (iv) 6 events have no jets (still to look into jet finding).
  • not using orange jets!
  • Reasons (cont …)
  • Isolated cone differences due to CG applying this cut only if scattered positron angle is between 20 and 140 degrees, while JS applied it throughout.
  • Hadronic angle, cos differences are due to “extra cells” in my events.
  • Events with no jets in have not yet been looked at. Suspect same cells difference as the cause.

QCD Meeting, 24th March 2005Jeff Standage, York University

slide10

In Conclusion

  • For 99p-00 data:
  • CG has 9227 DIS events with 1+ jet(s).
  • Using her methods, cuts, etc., I get 9222
  • Differences:
  • CG has 14 events I don’t (2 cos, 7 no jets, no run 37715).
  • I have 9 that CG doesn’t.
  • 9 events have different jet data (ET, L/B).
  • Rest of the events are identical.
  • Differences due to slight difference in cells used in the events?

QCD Meeting, 24th March 2005Jeff Standage, York University

slide11

Future steps

  • Nail down last few events cut differences (worth it?).
  • Currently comparing detector level MC.
  • Repeat process for the hadron level in MC
  • (using JT/CG get_hadsys.fpp).
  • Compare acceptance corrections.
  • Jet energy corrections.
  • Cross-sections.
  • Decide which methods/corrections are the right ones (why)?

QCD Meeting, 24th March 2005Jeff Standage, York University

slide12

So…

  • Nail down last few events cut differences (worth it?). - Not worth it.
  • Detector level MC. (no further changes). -CG has 20237 (1+ jet) events with 28679 jets.
  • - JS has 20239 events with 29669 jets (no corrections).
  • Repeat process for the hadron level in MC. (scaling of massless hadrons).
  • -CG has 32211 (1+ jet) events with 48526 jets.
  • - JS has 32233 events with 48566 jets (no corrections).
  • Jet energy corrections. - Process of getting jet energy corrections is subjective.
  • - Using CG numbers, I get similar level of agreement to above.
  • - My jet energy corrections look similar by eye, but give different results.
  • - Jet energy scale corrections agree precisely (no further changes).
  • Compare acceptance corrections.- Highly dependent on energy jet energy corrections.
  • Cross-sections.- Small dependence on energy jet energy corrections.

QCD Meeting, 7th April 2005Jeff Standage, York University

slide13

So…

  • Compare acceptance corrections.- Highly dependent on energy jet energy corrections.

Acc

(jet)

Cross-sections.- Small dependence on energy jet energy corrections.

QCD Meeting, 7th April 2005Jeff Standage, York University

slide14

Summary

  • I have reproduced CG results using her methods.
  • Details of differences between two analysis methods have been shown.
  • Differences between CG/MJ/JT and JS/TSS analyses now found and have been shown.
  • Many differences seem to have a minor but cumulative effect.
  • Results are very sensitive to scattered electron four-momentum effect on the boost to/from Breit frame.
  • Acceptance corrections very sensitive to the jet energy corrections used, although final cross-sections are not.

Future steps

  • Decide between discrepancies, sets of corrections, etc.
  • Extend to include electron data.
  • Incorporated QED, hadron-parton corrections.
  • Crunch numbers to get systematic errors.
  • Produce preliminary plots.

QCD Meeting, 7th March 2005Jeff Standage, York University