Jet Validation of Summer11 MC
-
Upload
xanthus-fox -
Category
Documents
-
view
28 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Jet Validation of Summer11 MC
![Page 1: Jet Validation of Summer11 MC](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062308/56812a87550346895d8e234e/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Jet Validationof
Summer11 MC
Artur ApresyanCaltech
Joanna WengETH Zurich
Kittikul KovitanggoonTexas Tech University
1
![Page 2: Jet Validation of Summer11 MC](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062308/56812a87550346895d8e234e/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Summer11 wrt Spring11_S2
• The datasets are • Summer11 MC processing with CMSSW_4_2_2
• /TT_TuneZ2_7TeV-pythia6-tauola/Summer11-PU_S3_START42_V11-v2/GEN-SIM-RECO
• Spring11 MC processing with CMSSW_4_1_4• /TT_TuneZ2_7TeV-pythia6-tauola/Spring11-PU_S2_START311_V2-v2/GEN-SIM-RECODEBUG
• Both datasets have inTime and OOT PU, but the Spring11 sample mistakenly was produced with 25 ns bunch-spacing• In both samples, the inTime and OOT PU have the “Flat10” distribution• https://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=3&resId=1&materialId=slides&confId=136336
• Summer11 has 50 ns bunch-spacing
• Details about various PU configurations are at:• https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/CMS/PileupInformation 2
![Page 3: Jet Validation of Summer11 MC](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062308/56812a87550346895d8e234e/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Generator Level Jets
• The jet parameters look identical on both Summer11 and Spring11_S2• Generator level includes only particles from primary collision, no pile-up
3
Summer11Spring11
![Page 4: Jet Validation of Summer11 MC](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062308/56812a87550346895d8e234e/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
# of jets, |η|>1.3, pT>10 GeV
Reco jet MultiplicityReco jet Multiplicity
• This and the following slides will show comparison for AK5 CaloJets
• Conclusions for other types of jets are the same
• Higher jet occupancy in Spring11_S2, which is expected from OOT PU that is more pronounced in Spring11 (25ns pileup)
• Number of jets is higher in Spring11_S2 sample, but they are mostly soft jets from different OOT PU 4
Summer11Spring11
# of jets, |η|≤1.3, pT>10 GeV Jets Pt
![Page 5: Jet Validation of Summer11 MC](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062308/56812a87550346895d8e234e/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Jet pT scale (pTcalo/pT
gen)
• Jet scale in Spring11_S2 is higher than that in Summer11 in all detector regions• Most pronounced in jets up to ~100 GeV• The difference is bigger in Endcaps, and most pronounced in the HF region
• Again, expected from 25 ns OOT PU in Spring11_S2
5
PT scale, |η|≤1.3
Summer11Spring11
PT scale, 1.3<|η|<3.0 PT scale, 3<|η|<5.0
![Page 6: Jet Validation of Summer11 MC](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062308/56812a87550346895d8e234e/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Jet Eta and Phi distributions
• Flat in Phi, the “horns” in eta are more pronounced in Spring11_S2 likely due to 25ns
6
Jets η, PT>10 GeV Jets φ, PT>10 GeV
Summer11Spring11
![Page 7: Jet Validation of Summer11 MC](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062308/56812a87550346895d8e234e/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Summer11 VS Summer11 VS Spring11_S1Spring11_S1
7
![Page 8: Jet Validation of Summer11 MC](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062308/56812a87550346895d8e234e/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Summer11 wrt Spring11_S1
• The datasets are • Summer11 MC processing with CMSSW_4_2_2
• /TT_TuneZ2_7TeV-pythia6-tauola/Summer11-PU_S3_START42_V11-v2/GEN-SIM-RECO
• Spring11 MC processing with CMSSW_4_1_4• /TT_TuneZ2_7TeV-pythia6-tauola/Spring11-PU_S1_START311_V1G1-v1/AODSIM
• Here we are comparing to Spring11_S1 sample which has NO OOT PU wrt Summer11 sample.• Summer11 sample is the same as shown on previous pages, with 50ns OOT PU
• Detailed comparisons at:• http://highenergy.phys.ttu.edu/~keng/validation/plots/TT_Summer11_wrt_Spring11_S1_area/
8
![Page 9: Jet Validation of Summer11 MC](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062308/56812a87550346895d8e234e/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
# of jets, |η|>1.3, pT>10 GeV
Reco jet MultiplicityReco jet Multiplicity
• This and the following slides will show comparison for AK5 CaloJets• Conclusions for other types of jets are the same
• Slightly higher jet occupancy in Summer11 samples, effect of OOT PU
9
Summer11Spring11
# of jets, |η|≤1.3, pT>10 GeV Jets Pt
![Page 10: Jet Validation of Summer11 MC](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062308/56812a87550346895d8e234e/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Jet Eta and Phi distributions
10
Jets η, PT>10 GeV Jets φ, PT>10 GeV
Summer11Spring11
![Page 11: Jet Validation of Summer11 MC](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062308/56812a87550346895d8e234e/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Jet pT scale (pTcalo/pT
gen)
• Jet scale in Summer11 is higher than that in Spring11_S1, in all detector regions• Expected for barrel and endcap, but not immediately clear why different in HF
• HF energy reconstruction is done with 2TS, should be insensitive to 50ns OOT PU• Maybe PileUp (inTime) configuration is different between S3 and S1?
11
PT scale, |η|≤1.3
Summer11Spring11
PT scale, 1.3<|η|<3.0 PT scale, 3<|η|<5.0
![Page 12: Jet Validation of Summer11 MC](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062308/56812a87550346895d8e234e/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Energy in subdetectorsEnergy in subdetectors
12
Summer11Spring11
Energy in EB Energy in EE
Energy in HB Energy in HE Energy in HF
Unexpected difference in HF
![Page 13: Jet Validation of Summer11 MC](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062308/56812a87550346895d8e234e/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Jet pT response (pT
corrected/pTgen)
• After applying the L2L3 jet energy corrections the differences are not as large between two samples
• But it is still not clear why there is difference in previous page…
13
PT scale, |η|≤1.3
Summer11Spring11
PT scale, 1.3<|η|<3.0 PT scale, 3<|η|<5.0
![Page 14: Jet Validation of Summer11 MC](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062308/56812a87550346895d8e234e/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Jet Validation of Spring 2011
14
CMSSW Release Validation status
4_2_2 Pass
4_3_0_pre2 Pass
4_3_0_pre4 Pass for Calo and JPTFail for JPT
Change in JPT algorithm
4_1_6 Pass
4_2_3 Pass
![Page 15: Jet Validation of Summer11 MC](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062308/56812a87550346895d8e234e/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
4_3_0_pre4
• This discrepancies are understood to be caused by a change in JPT algorithm.• Starting from some 4_3_0_preX we use UseZSP = cms.bool(False) in
agreement with the new JEC structure for JPT.• ZSP corrections should go into L1JPTOffset. Staring in 4_3_0_pre6 release.
15
4_3_0_pre44_3_0_pre2
• The energy change for the JPT algorithm.
PT scale, |η|≤1.3 PT ratio
![Page 16: Jet Validation of Summer11 MC](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062308/56812a87550346895d8e234e/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Conclusions• The Jet validation for normal release is moving smoothly
•Spring11_S2 MC has more jets than Summer11 MC, but they are mostly soft jets from different OOT PU (25 ns OOT PU in Spring11_S2 and 50 ns OOT PU in Summer11)
• Jet pT response is higher in Spring11_S2 than Summer11. This again is expected from different OOT PU
• Generator level jets are identical in both datasets
• Spring11_S1 sample looks OK in general, but some features need further investigatio
• Response is OK, Spring11_S1 can likely be used for analysis, we are following this up with HCal group
16