1 / 61

Look at dead material and fake MET in Jx samples

Look at dead material and fake MET in Jx samples. Update mc08 10 TeV simulations, release 14.2.20.3 J0 to J8 are tag s479_r586, ‘ideal geometry’ samples

randy
Download Presentation

Look at dead material and fake MET in Jx samples

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. Look at dead material and fake MET in Jx samples • Update • mc08 10 TeV simulations, release 14.2.20.3 • J0 to J8 are tag s479_r586, ‘ideal geometry’ samples • Looked at the dead material variables in the AOD, the ones labeled ‘All’, which is Crack1 + Crack2 + Cryo, ‘Crack1’, which is 1.1 < fabs(eta) < 1.7, and ‘Crack2’, 2.9 < fabs(eta) < 3.5 • Plotted the distribution of the jet true eta in events with large (>100 GeV) fake MET, of that jet among the 2 lead jets, which is worse reconstructed • There are 2 versions: the upper one is always corrected for the eta distribution of the jets, by dividing the initial bad-jet-eta histogram, which is plotted bottom right, by the true jet eta histogram of all lead jets in the sample • Looked at jet resolution in large fake MET events David

  2. J0 Green bullets are always profile plots of the colored 2d histogram! • Next few slides: • Top left: transverse energy in all dead material vs. eta of the lead jet • Top right: for fake MET > 100 GeV, the eta of the rec. jet, among the 2 lead jets, which is poorer reconstructed. Histogram has per bin the number of events for 10 pb-1 • Bottom: Dead material ET depot vs. fake MET, for all dead material, for crack 1 DM and lead jet hitting crack 1, crack 2 DM and lead jet crack 2 David

  3. J1 Green bullets are always profile plots of the colored 2d histogram! David

  4. J2 Green bullets are always profile plots of the colored 2d histogram! David

  5. J3 2e7 ev / 10 pb-1 David

  6. J4 • Eta-corrected: • Divided by all-jets eta spectrum • bin content comparable 1.5e6 ev / 10 pb-1 David

  7. J5 • Eta-corrected: • Divided by all-jets eta spectrum • bin content comparable 5e4 ev / 10 pb-1 ? David

  8. J6 • Eta-corrected: • Divided by all-jets eta spectrum • bin content comparable 1100 ev / 10 pb-1 David

  9. J7 • Eta-corrected: • Divided by all-jets eta spectrum • bin content comparable 11 ev / 10 pb-1 David

  10. J8 • Eta-corrected: • Divided by all-jets eta spectrum • bin content comparable 0.01 ev / 10 pb-1 David

  11. Peak at eta=0 • Due to Tile sampling? • Due to Lar gap (few mm) at eta=0? • Check fraction of jet energy in Lar, and its correlation with fake MET David

  12. J0 jet EM fraction Jet EM fraction vs fake MET Jet EM fraction central (black) vs not-so central (green) Jet EM fraction vs eta lead jet Jet EM fraction vs eta bad jet for large fake MET David

  13. J1 jet EM fraction Jet EM fraction vs fake MET Jet EM fraction central (black) vs not-so central (green) Jet EM fraction vs eta lead jet Jet EM fraction vs eta bad jet for large fake MET David

  14. J2 jet EM fraction Jet EM fraction vs fake MET Jet EM fraction central (black) vs not-so central (green) Jet EM fraction vs eta lead jet Jet EM fraction vs eta bad jet for large fake MET David

  15. J3 jet EM fraction Jet EM fraction vs fake MET Jet EM fraction central (black) vs not-so central (green) Jet EM fraction vs eta lead jet Jet EM fraction vs eta bad jet for large fake MET David

  16. J4 jet EM fraction Jet EM fraction vs fake MET Jet EM fraction central (black) vs not-so central (green) Jet EM fraction vs eta lead jet Jet EM fraction vs eta bad jet for large fake MET David

  17. J5 jet EM fraction Jet EM fraction vs fake MET Jet EM fraction central (black) vs not-so central (green) Jet EM fraction vs eta lead jet Jet EM fraction vs eta bad jet for large fake MET David

  18. J6 jet EM fraction Jet EM fraction vs fake MET Jet EM fraction central (black) vs not-so central (green) Jet EM fraction vs eta lead jet Jet EM fraction vs eta bad jet for large fake MET David

  19. J7 jet EM fraction Jet EM fraction vs fake MET Jet EM fraction central (black) vs not-so central (green) Jet EM fraction vs eta lead jet Jet EM fraction vs eta bad jet for large fake MET David

  20. J8 jet EM fraction Jet EM fraction vs fake MET Jet EM fraction central (black) vs not-so central (green) Jet EM fraction vs eta lead jet Jet EM fraction vs eta bad jet for large fake MET David

  21. Jet EM fraction conclusion • Lar gap or Tile sampling doesn’t seem to be the problem • Lar gap: there isn’t a sharp dip in the EM fraction at eta=0, just the expected gradual increase with eta (coverage effect due to increasing calorimeter thickness) • Tile sampling: • No correlation with fake MET for high Jx samples • More and more energy in Tile, since EM fraction goes down with increasing Jx David

  22. Jet resolution close to eta=0 for large fake MET • So what kind of jets cause the peak at 0? • Compare the jet resolution of all lead jets to the resolution of those jets that are poorly reconstructed in events with large fake MET • Following plots: • Top left: jet resolution vs. true eta, all lead jets • Top right: jet resolution poorly rec. jets, for large fake MET • Bottom: slices through the top right, i.e jet resolution for jet eta close to 0, around 0.7, around 1.5 David

  23. J0 delta jet energy vs eta for poor MET David

  24. J1 delta jet energy vs eta for poor MET David

  25. J2 delta jet energy vs eta for poor MET David

  26. J3 delta jet energy vs eta for poor MET David

  27. J4 delta jet energy vs eta for poor MET David

  28. J5 delta jet energy vs eta for poor MET David

  29. J6 delta jet energy vs eta for poor MET David

  30. J7 delta jet energy vs eta for poor MET David

  31. J8 delta jet energy vs eta for poor MET David

  32. Jet resolution for large fake MET conclusions • Picking out events with large fake MET reveals largely asymmetric tails in the resolution of the worst rec. jet in the event • At eta close to 0 jets are underestimated, at eta close to 0.7 (barrel to extended barrel), we overshoot, at eta close to 1.5 (crack 1, inner detector services) we undershoot again • This can be an effect of the jet reconstruction, but also of the MET reco (selection effect) • First attempt: check it isn’t punch through of central jets • Check MS hits correlation • Will probably need to go into more detail of the jet / MET reconstruction David

  33. Quick look at MS hits David

  34. MS Hits • Clear correlation of MS hits with delta energy • Clearly detector structures are visible • Cut on MS hits of 200 yields overall improvement, but peak at 0 remains David

  35. J0 jet resolution tails David

  36. J1 jet resolution tails David

  37. J2 jet resolution tails David

  38. J3 jet resolution tails David

  39. J4 jet resolution tails David

  40. J5 jet resolution tails David

  41. J6 jet resolution tails David

  42. J7 jet resolution tails David

  43. J8 jet resolution tails David

  44. J0 MET true vs. reco vs. reco w/o cracks David

  45. J1 MET true vs. reco vs. reco w/o cracks David

  46. J2 MET true vs. reco vs. reco w/o cracks David

  47. J3 MET true vs. reco vs. reco w/o cracks David

  48. J4 MET true vs. reco vs. reco w/o cracks David

  49. J5 MET true vs. reco vs. reco w/o cracks David

  50. J6 MET true vs. reco vs. reco w/o cracks David

More Related