1 / 12

Update

Update. FTK Meeting 07/13/06 Erik Brubaker U of Chicago. Outline. Signal Samples. Tools Sherpa samples LVL1 Parametrizations Physics H  hh  4b Plans. Sherpa Samples. FTK Performance. LVL1 Params. LVL1 Rate. LVL2 Rate. Optimize FOM with rate constraints. Analysis FOM.

iram
Download Presentation

Update

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. Update FTK Meeting 07/13/06 Erik Brubaker U of Chicago

  2. Outline Signal Samples • Tools • Sherpa samples • LVL1 Parametrizations • Physics • Hhh4b • Plans Sherpa Samples FTKPerformance LVL1 Params LVL1 Rate LVL2 Rate Optimize FOMwith rateconstraints Analysis FOM FTK Meeting

  3. Sherpa samples • Last meeting, thought final samples were being generated. • Several problems uncovered since then. FTK Meeting

  4. Sherpa problem #1 • 22-only sample (red) is harder than 22+23 (green)! • Problem in sherpa 1.0.8—parton shower starting scale not clearly defined for 22 alone. FTK Meeting

  5. Drop 22 ME in sherpa • All the physics processes we look at so far have 4 final state objects. • In a 22+23sample, eventsproduced by the22 MEcontributenegligibly totrigger rates. • Drop 22 ME toincrease effectivestatistics. FTK Meeting

  6. Sherpa problem #2 (related to #1?) • Sample without 22 ME has harder 4th jet. • 4th jet is produced by PS in either case—expect very similar distributions. • Plots normalized by cross-section. Events per pb-1 FTK Meeting

  7. Sherpa problem #3 (from Kohei) • Lowering the ycut of the sample should only increase the derived trigger rate by covering more phase space. • But rate(ycut=10) < rate(ycut=25)! • Related to otherproblems? Revisitwith recent fixes. FTK Meeting

  8. Additional sherpa questions • Execution time in my setup is longer than the authors see. Strangely, t(MI-on) < t(MI-off). • Why not throw this all out the window and use Pythia or Alpgen? • Point was to avoid pythia dijet+PS to describe 3rd, 4th jets. But pythia can and should be used as a baseline to compare to. • Help from Kohei for jobOptions. • Alpgen is complicated in different ways. SUSY folk are trying to get a validated multijet sample out of it. Could be an option. FTK Meeting

  9. tt LVL1 parametrization • For BG processes with real ts, would be useful to have parametrization of LVL1 t trigger response to ts. • Improvements in ATLAS DDM mean I can access datasets… • SingleTaupt20, 50, 100 copied over. • Can’t use samples with filters! • Next step is to run full latest simulation and make response plots for matched ts. FTK Meeting

  10. Multi-threshold machinery • Rigorous determination of the probability for a given event to pass a given set of jet trigger thresholds (given the LVL1 jetjet parametrizations) is somewhat complicated. • Code available now for the general case at: http://hep.uchicago.edu/~brubaker/ftk/ FTK Meeting

  11. LVL1 rates for Hhh4b • Example threshold scan, two thresholds, using full parametrization machinery. • Valid for any 4-jet FS. • Uses Sherpa MC with known bugrates too low! Bad MC! 3rd & 4th jet threshold Rate @ 1033 cm-2 s-1 FTK Meeting

  12. Plans • Make and check “final” sherpa samples. • Use pythia sample as bg rate cross-check. • Make tt LVL1 parametrization. • Understand Hhh4b cross-section vs mH, mh. • Perform threshold scans and optimize observation significance for Hhh4b with and without FTK. • Focus, finish, document by July 26. FTK Meeting

More Related