(Di-)Photon + MET Status and Plans for 5 fb -1 Analysis
description
Transcript of (Di-)Photon + MET Status and Plans for 5 fb -1 Analysis
![Page 1: (Di-)Photon + MET Status and Plans for 5 fb -1 Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814bfa550346895db8f2bf/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
(Di-)Photon + MET Status and Plans for
5 fb-1 AnalysisWho plans to contribute?
• DESY (Ehrenfeld, Wildt, Vankov)• Annecy (Przysiezniak-Frey)• Penn (Williams, Bradmiller-Feld)• Santa Cruz (Damiani, Kim, Nielsen, Schumm)• La Plata (Dova, Alonso)• Tokyo (Jinnouchi)
Bruce Schumm3 Nov 2011
![Page 2: (Di-)Photon + MET Status and Plans for 5 fb -1 Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814bfa550346895db8f2bf/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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.
Compare to CMS analysis: • At least 2 isolated photons withET 45,30 GeV
• ETmiss 100 GeV
• At least one jet with ET 30 GeV
![Page 3: (Di-)Photon + MET Status and Plans for 5 fb -1 Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814bfa550346895db8f2bf/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
ATLAS CMS
# obs (exp) 5 (4.1) 0 (1.5)
Lum (fb-1) 1.07 1.14
Obs limit (fb) 26 27Exp limit (fb) 23 33
Much time spent in deconstructing this difference, butat the end of the day, it all comes down to expected limit. How could these numbers be consistent?
![Page 4: (Di-)Photon + MET Status and Plans for 5 fb -1 Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814bfa550346895db8f2bf/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
The answer to the conundrum lies in the acceptance*efficiency:e.g. at (mg,mB,mq) = (880,375,1520)
ATLAS 27% CMS 12%But let’s look at backgrounds…
“Instrumental”
“Genuine”
![Page 5: (Di-)Photon + MET Status and Plans for 5 fb -1 Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814bfa550346895db8f2bf/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
But CMS made their cut at 100 GeV; for that cut
backgrounds CMS ATLASInstrumental 2.5 2.4
Genuine 0.3 6.1TOTAL 2.8 8.5
Our estimated backgrounds:
CMS significantly reduced the “genuine” component (jet requirement? e gamma fake rate?) at expense of efficiency.
![Page 6: (Di-)Photon + MET Status and Plans for 5 fb -1 Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814bfa550346895db8f2bf/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
In addition, examination of our high-PT events suggested• e fakes do indeed dominate• alignment of ETMiss with photon
This motivates• Studies to reduce backgrounds• Use of additional discriminating variables
Since we have a little time, we’ve tried to open things up a bit (but we are now beginning to refocus on optimization for final event selection)
![Page 7: (Di-)Photon + MET Status and Plans for 5 fb -1 Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814bfa550346895db8f2bf/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Penn: Look at isolation, conversion category, pixel hits
![Page 8: (Di-)Photon + MET Status and Plans for 5 fb -1 Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814bfa550346895db8f2bf/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
0 conversion2 conversions
1 conversion
0 conversion 1 conversion2 conversions
![Page 9: (Di-)Photon + MET Status and Plans for 5 fb -1 Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814bfa550346895db8f2bf/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
![Page 10: (Di-)Photon + MET Status and Plans for 5 fb -1 Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814bfa550346895db8f2bf/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
So where do we go from here?Penn/La Plata: Explore isolation w/ W sample; devise pragmatic suggestion for optimization:• ETCone_20,30,40?• Cut energy?• Energy-dependent cuts?• Leading vs. sub-leading?
La Plata/UCSC: Discrimination of other observables:Separate conversions categories, pixel hits for conversions, ETMiss (scaled?), Photon-ETMiss , Photon ET, Photon-ETMiss transverse mass, Meff/HT, jet activity
DESY: Contamination in QCD control sample (W, signal…)
![Page 11: (Di-)Photon + MET Status and Plans for 5 fb -1 Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814bfa550346895db8f2bf/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
6 Oct 2011 SUSY Photon Meeting 11
Bino-Like Grid Points• 2-d Gluino vs Bino grid– Gluino masses:
• 800, 850, 900, 950, 1000, 1050, 1100, 1200– Bino masses:
• 50, 100, 150, 300, 450, … , mgl – 20, mgl – 10• 79 points total – 5000 events per point
• 2-d Squark vs Bino grid– Mainly care about this grid to measure acceptance
differences with respect to the gluino-bino grid.– Same basic structure of points as above.
Status: Submitted; awaiting processing.
![Page 12: (Di-)Photon + MET Status and Plans for 5 fb -1 Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814bfa550346895db8f2bf/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Rough Calendar (Feedback?)
Preliminary studies (isolation, discriminating variables, QCD control sample) finish this week
Optimization over next two weeks (next week through 21-Nov?)
Un-blind (Through 1-Dec?)
Systematics (Through 15-Dec?)
What should target for support note be?
![Page 13: (Di-)Photon + MET Status and Plans for 5 fb -1 Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814bfa550346895db8f2bf/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Photon + X + ETMiss
Starting to ask: what should “X” be?
CMS: X = 3 jets above 30 GeV
Have started to look at signal, background for single tight photon selection (MC; no trigger selection yet)
Signal: 800 GeV gluino, 400 GeV Bino, all else at ~
![Page 14: (Di-)Photon + MET Status and Plans for 5 fb -1 Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814bfa550346895db8f2bf/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
250 fb-1 of signal
![Page 15: (Di-)Photon + MET Status and Plans for 5 fb -1 Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814bfa550346895db8f2bf/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
1.8 fb-1 of W
![Page 16: (Di-)Photon + MET Status and Plans for 5 fb -1 Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814bfa550346895db8f2bf/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
6.8x10-5 fb-1 of QCD_J2
![Page 17: (Di-)Photon + MET Status and Plans for 5 fb -1 Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814bfa550346895db8f2bf/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
1.2 fb-1 of QCD_J5
![Page 18: (Di-)Photon + MET Status and Plans for 5 fb -1 Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814bfa550346895db8f2bf/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Photon + X + ETMiss Next Steps
Look at full 1 fb-1 (5fb-1?) loose-tight ETMiss distributions to gauge QCD backgrounds from data.
Look at W+jets and ttbar for other possible contributions
To me, backgrounds look a little less daunting than I had feared (but this is all MC, and only a partial sampling so far)