1 / 30

Summary of experimental contributions to SMH working group

Summary of experimental contributions to SMH working group. Craig Buttar. SMH Topics. SM benchmarks for LHC startup PDF uncertainties MC Multi-parton and NNLO Precision Higgs cross-sections Electroweak corrections for LHC and LC A brief summary of many topics!!. SM Benchmarks. W/Z

bebe
Download Presentation

Summary of experimental contributions to SMH working group

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. Summary of experimental contributions to SMH working group Craig Buttar

  2. SMH Topics • SM benchmarks for LHC startup • PDF uncertainties • MC • Multi-parton and NNLO • Precision Higgs cross-sections • Electroweak corrections for LHC and LC A brief summary of many topics!!

  3. SM Benchmarks • W/Z • W/Z as luminosity monitors • Effect of PDFs on W/Z xsects • W-production impact on PDFs (Cooper-Sarkar/Tricoli) • Effect of low-x corrections (Ball, Del Duca) • Uncertainties on DY with MC@NLO (Ferrag) • W-mass

  4. The W mass • The W mass measurement is systematically limited, • and theoretical errors play an important role: • Pt distribution of W and Z. • Difference between W and Z important. • Many calculations exist at NLO, but not all public. • Uncertainties discussed → scaling variation not enough. • Experimenters wish list: Several public calculations! • Influence of PDF uncertainties. • Difference between ubar(x) and dbar(x) • at x ≈ 10-3 influence W and Z mass – correlation? • Method of reweighting to be checked – other methods? • Otherwise, impact on W mass: 17 MeV!!! • Effect of ISR and FSR. • FSR dominant effect – correlation between W and Z. • Photos good for evaluating photons within EM-cluster. - and its theoretical uncertainties. Experimental comment: Energy scale may dominate error! T. Petersen, Les Houches, 10th May 2005

  5. Uncertainty in total xsect from PDFs Tricoli/Cooper-Sarkar Z rapidity б.B=2.025 ± 0.062 nb W+ rapidity б.B=12.27 ± 0.40 nb W- rapidity б.B=9.08 ± 0.30 nb NLO predictions for dб/dy. B(leptonic) for single W production at the LHC from ZEUS-S 2002 PDFs with uncertainties-( conventional evolution) PDF uncertainties of ~ ±3% in б.B, but ~±5% at central rapidity

  6. Study the effect of including the W Rapidity distributions in global PDF Fits by how much can we reduce the PDF errors? Generate data with CTEQ6.1 PDF, pass through ATLFAST detector simulation and then include this pseudo-data in the global ZEUS PDF fit. Central value of prediction shifts and uncertainty is reduced AFTER including W data BEFORE including W data Tricoli/Cooper-Sarkar W+ to lepton rapidity spectrum data generated with CTEQ6.1 PDF compared to predictions from ZEUS PDF AFTER these data are included in the fit W+ to lepton rapidity spectrum data generated with CTEQ6.1 PDF compared to predictions from ZEUS PDF Specifically the low-x gluon shape parameter λ, xg(x) = x –λ , was λ = -.187 ± .046 for the ZEUS PDF before including this pseudo-data It becomes λ = -.155 ± .03 after including the pseudodata

  7. Tricoli/Cooper-Sarkar Reconstructed e- Reconstructed e+ MRST02 MRST02 MRST02 MRST02 MRST03 MRST03 MRST03 MRST03 h h Reconstructed e+- e- Asymmetry Reconstructed e- / e+ Ratio h Contrast the prediction of MRST2002 PDFs conventional QCD evolution with those of MRST03 which distrusts the conventional secenario for x< 5 10-3 Y=0 x=5.10-3 Y=2.5 x=5.10-4 Sensitive to low-x effects R.Ball generated with HERWIG 6.505 + NLO K factors, ATLFAST (200k events->6hrs at low lumi LHC

  8. Benchmark: Drell-Yan (Ferrag) • Goal: • Limits on the SM predictions • Observables: • Mll, Pt, boost, Dh • MC@NLO: • s computed by 100 GeV bin • 200 GeV < invMass< 2500 GeV • Sources of uncertainties: • -Factorisation and Renormalisation scales • 1/p * m t < m < p* m t • -PDFs • CTEQ6 40+1 pdf1 40 CTEQ6 pdfs Energy scale variation Invariant mass(GeV) Define threoretical uncertainties Study experimental uncertainies

  9. MC • MC@NLO • ggH (Davatz, Drozdetski) • qqWW spin correlations (Drollinger) • ggWW (Duhrssen) • Underlying event • Energy extrapolation (Godbole) • Effect of UE in CJV and lepton isolation (Buttar,Clements, Drozdetski) • Tuning PYTHIA 6.2 and 6.3 (Buttar,Moraes,Skands,Sjostrand) • Tuning • Hbb,tbb fragmentation functions (Drollinger, Corcella)

  10. MC@NLO vs LO (Herwig) for gg->H->ZZ->4m mH = 250 GeV: effect of kinematic selections on K factor • Normalized to the number of events for 30 fb-1 • NLO: Nevent(selection)=58.7; • LO: Nevent(selection)=25.7 • KNLO/LO = 2.22 (before selection) • KNLO/LO = 2.28 (after selection) • Conclusion: no significant difference A. Drozdetski Blue: NLO Red: K*LO Analysis cuts: 243 < Minv(H) < 257 GeV

  11. Jet veto in gg-h with MC@NLO, PYTHIA6.3, HERWIG and CASCADE. G. Davatz Cut ~30GeV in gg->H->WW Differences vary over the pT spectrum: Integrated efficiency over whole pT spectrum and up to a pT Higgs of 80 GeV: Within MC@NLO uncertainty will be estimated changing the scale

  12. Lepton correlations in WW Drollinger Spin correlation Recently added To MC@NLO qq->WW Pythia reweighted to NLO according to Pt-distribution of WW-system -- describes all distributions except lepton correlations  MC@NLO See also qq->WW By Duehrssen,Binoth

  13. effect of UE on isolation in H->ZZ->4mA. Drozdetski 10-15% Effect on lepton isolation • PARP(82) = 2.9  PTcut_off = 2.9 GeV – default scenario • PARP(82) = 2.4  PTcut_off = 2.4 GeV – pessimistic scenario • PARP(82) = 3.4  PTcut_off = 3.4 GeV – optimistic scenario Ptch>2.0 PYTHIA 6.2 Ptch>0.5

  14. Effect of multiple interaction models on CJV efficiency (MH 160GeV/c2) Clements,Buttar,Moraes 6% effect PYTHIA6.2 The Tuned Model is a fit to experimental data, using a double gaussian matter distribution with a large core radius. Dan Clements – Feb 2005 ATLAS Physics week

  15. PYTHIA 6.3 Sjostrand, Skands • Pt-ordering of ISRand FSR • New MI modelCorrelated PDFsColour correlations • Interleaved ISR+MI

  16. PYTHIA 6.3 Tuning Moraes/Buttar Preliminary Smooth ISR cut-off Exponential matter density

  17. Underlying event and minimum bias: extrapolation to LHC Godbole, Pancheri, Grou and Srivastava New calculation of total xsect using mini-jet modelParameterisation of inelastic for PYTHIA (with error band) Preliminary sinel(LHC)=60mb

  18. Hbb fragmentationCorcella/Drollinger Fragmentation function tuned to e+e- data

  19. Agenda of Top Quark related sessions during the Workshop (first session) (contact/organiser : Jorgen D’Hondt) General Top Quark session (2): ttbar Frixione/Maltoni (theory), Huston (Tevatron), D’Hondt (LHC) Single-top Dudko (theory), Dudko (Tevatron), Giammanco (LHC) Jets Ellis Polarization Tsuno Specific single-top quark session : Get the optimal ‘Feynman’ observables from D0 and implement them at the LHC, try the DQ-distribution to estimate the W+njet background. Top Quark mass session : Discussion of mass reconstructions. Jet definition session (2): Definition of variables which can quantify a jet definition to reconstruct the kinematics of the complete final state. Top quark systematic session : Try to define a procedure to estimate systematic uncertainties due to ISR/FSR radiation and b-quark fragmentation.

  20. Jet definition sessions (1&2) : Aim to define some variables which can identify the quality of jet definitions To reconstruct the kinematics of the full event (several jet densities) Angles (in space!) : a = Σai(jet-parton) Energy : DE = Σ |(Ejet/Eparton)i – 1| Mass : Dm = Σ |Dmi(jet-parton)| Selection efficiency : es (having 4-jets in the final state passing some basic criterion on Et and h) Resolution on energy : A  B/sqrt(E)  C/E First preliminary results (CMS) : Iterative cone R=0.5, Et,minseed=2GeV Heyninck Heyninck eE = A/(A+B) ea = A/(A+B) A B A B a (radian) DE (GeV)

  21. First preliminary results (CMS) : comparison jet definitions • IC : R=0.5, Et,minseed=2GeV (no merging or splitting) • MC : R=0.5, Et,minseed=2GeV, overlap thres = 50%, only pairs • kT : D=1 (is basically a cone larger than R=0.5) • General : Calorimeter Towers E-threshold of 1 GeV, ET-scheme ETraw>10GeV, |h|<2.5 Heyninck → Clearly some differencences between cone-like and kT-like definitions Aim : compare these variables for several jet definitions (including : input definition, clustering algorithm, recombination, ...) For several jet densities: single-top (2jets), tt (4jets), ttH (6jets), ttH (8jets) → Giammanco, Heyninck, Schmidt

  22. Top quark systematics session : • Aim is to define a procedure to estimate the uncertainties at the LHC (from MC!) • Radiation uncertainties (ISR/FSR) • ISR : tt+1jet is ~40% of inclusive set • (best would be MC@NLO  PY6.3 • and CKKW matching) • syst = change PARP(67) ~ pTmax • between 1 and 4 (or higher for LHC) • LHC → reweight PY6.2 to CompHEP/MadGraph • → check other distributions !! • Problem : large weights, ttH still visible ?? • Solution : select on pt of tt system • FSR : change LQCD in Parton Shower • 2. Colour reconnection • Conservative model to be implemented • Estimate effect on mt Skands, D’Hondt Skands PY 6.3 PY 6.2 factor ~3-4 increase pt of ISR jet

  23. The End or is it the start? • Topics will continue after the workshop • Many topics collected on SM benchmark website: http://www.pa.msu.edu/~huston/Les_Houches_2005/Les_Houches_SM.html Final thoughts • Experiments moving to ‘next’ level of study using full simulations and reconstruction • Theory also moving by providing more precise predictions

  24. More on • A.N. “Zeppenfeld plot” : effect of ETj3 cut ? (will bring Tuersday evening) • Grazzini-effect of W-polarisation in WW • Low-x: Richard Ball • Single-top • Top—Jorgen

  25. Luminosity with W/Z P. Giraud, S.Hassani Analysis with PYTHIA and ATLFAST W-statistical error PYTHIA Z-statistical error PYTHIA Now working with MC@NLO

  26. Luminosity with W/Z P. Giraud, S.Hassani For acceptance PYTHIA or MC@NLO will work but for absolute xsect must use MC@NLO

  27. Quayle

More Related