1 / 49

Study of g production in association with jets using the CMS detector

July 21, 2011. Study of g production in association with jets using the CMS detector. Michael Anderson. Outline. Standard Model of Particle Physics Events of photon + jets Large Hadron Collider Compact Muon Solenoid Detector Detector/Physics Simulation Measuring Jets and Photons

janae
Download Presentation

Study of g production in association with jets using the CMS detector

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. July 21, 2011 Study of g production in association with jets using the CMS detector Michael Anderson

  2. Outline • Standard Model of Particle Physics • Events of photon + jets • Large Hadron Collider • Compact Muon Solenoid Detector • Detector/Physics Simulation • Measuring Jets and Photons • Conclusions

  3. Standard Model • Quarks interact via Strong Force (g), leptons cannot • Quarks, e, m, t interact via Electromagentic Force (g) • Both quarks and leptons interact via Weak Force (W, Z) • Quarks are tightly bound can cannot be detected individually • Quarks combine to form composite particles • Examples: Quarks (Fermions) Force Carriers (Bosons) H Higgs Leptons (Fermions) proton neutron pion

  4. Composite Particles proton • Probing composite particles (like protons) at high energy will find gluons and “sea” quarks • All quarks & gluons within hadrons referred to as “partons” • Parton Distribution Functions (PDFs): • defined as probability density for finding a particle with a certain momentum fraction, x, at a given momentum transfer • Must be determined experimentally • Needed as input to make theoretical predictions Simplified picture. In high-energy collisions, energy is available for finding “sea” quarks • x = p(parton)/p(hadron)

  5. Photons and Jets • Prompt Photons: come directly from interaction • Energy & position can be measured accurately • Prompt, Isolated photons provide good probe of hard-scattering process (like pp collisions) • Jets: quarks and gluons fragment into collimated collection of hadrons • Must measure jets to determine momentum of original scattered parton • Non-prompt photons produced within jets (“jet”) Jet example

  6. Motivation for g+jets • Motivation for study of photon+jet events includes: • Test/Validate theoretical predictions • Cross section calculations are challenging as the number of jets increases • Explore new kinematic regions in hadron-hadron collisions • They are background to pp->Higgs->gg • Also background for beyond standard model searches • Ability to constraining PDFs of the proton • Calibrate jet energy scales Prompt Photons Bremsstrahlung Photons • Prompt photons produced from quark-gluon scattering & quark-anti-quark annihilation • Primary prompt photon background comes from neutral meson decays

  7. Goal • Goal: measurement of the rate of events in which a proton-proton collision produces a prompt photon and jets • Prefer to measure inclusive rate of jets (rate of events with ≥ n jets), and to not correct for acceptance of the detector

  8. Large Hadron Collider • Circumference of 27 km • In 2010, collided protons with center-of-mass energy of 7 TeV • Protons are organized into bunches (next slide)

  9. Proton Collisions at LHC Design Achieved 1380 bunch/beam 1.3*1011 3.5 TeV 1.3*1033 cm-2s-1 Luminosity L = particle flux/time Interaction rate Cross section,  = “effective” area of interacting particles During 2010 run: Beam energy 3.5 TeV (7 TeV center of mass) Peak Luminosity, L = 2x1032 cm-2s-1 Recorded 36pb-1 of p-p collisions

  10. Compact Muon Solenoid Solenoid (3.8T) Muon chambers Forward calorimeter Silicon Strip & Pixel Tracker Electromagnetic Calorimeter Hadronic CalorimeterBrass/Scintillator Weight: 12,500 metric tons Diameter: 15 m Length: 21.5 m

  11. Compact Muon Solenoid ← Surface assembly hall CMS together underground ↓ Endcap Discs: Designed, assembled & installed by Wisconsin

  12. Detector Geometry • Pseudorapidityh = -ln(tan(q/2) • Another common variable: • Radius: DR = ((Df)2 + (Dh)2)1/2(used for sizes of jets, for example) One quadrant slice of CMS parallel to proton beam pipe h=0.0 Slice of CMS perpendicular to beam pipe h=1.5 f=p/2 h=3.0 h=inf f=0

  13. Particle Detection • Prompt Photons: • Deposit of of Energy in ECAL • Generally isolated from other energy deposits in Tracker, ECAL & HCAL • Found by clustering energy of ECAL crystals • Jets • Energy deposit in ECAL & HCAL • With tracks • Found by clustering tracks and energy deposits in the calorimeters • Detector returns quantities like transverse momentum, pT, and transverse energy, ET pp collisionpoint Slice of CMS perpendicular to proton beam pipe

  14. Particle Flow Algorithm • Particles are found using Particle-Flow (PF) Algorithm • Collects information from all subdetectors • Tracker, ECAL, HCAL, and muon System • Information from each sub-detector is linked to find individual particles (e,g,m,charged & neutral hadrons) • Example: track is associated with ECAL deposit and so found an electron • All particles found are then available to be clustered with jet algorithms • Used “anti-kT” clustering algorithm

  15. g+jet Characteristics • Prompt Photon is generally isolated deposit of energy in ECAL (red) • Jet is collimated collection of tracks (green), and deposit of energy in the ECAL (red) and HCAL (blue) • Events with 1 prompt photon and 1 jet have the photon and jet roughly opposite in f Slice of CMS perpendicular to beam pipe Jet Photon

  16. Silicon Tracker • Measures pT & path of charged particles within |h| < 2.5 • Strip Tracker • 200 m2 coverage • 10m precision measurements • 11M electronic channels • Inner Pixel tracking system • 66M channels • Used for isolating prompt photons, and finding jets & measuring their pT

  17. Electromagnetic Calorimeter  =-ln(tan(/2) • Measures energy & position of electrons and photons within |h| < 3 • PbWO4 crystals, very dense (8.3 g/cm3) • 23 cm long (26 radiation lengths) • 61K in the barrel, 22 x 22 mm2 • 15K in the endcaps, 28 x 28 mm2 • Resolution:

  18. Hadronic Calorimeter • Barrel and Endcap: brass & scintillator • Coverage to || < 3 • x =0.087x0.087 • Hadron Forward: steel & quartz fiber: coverage 3 < || < 5 • Also used for isolating photons and finding jets • Resolution on energy of a single particle:

  19. Trigger • Level 1: Hardware trigger operating at bunch crossing rate (40MHz at design luminosity) • Brings event rate down to 50-100 kHz • Level 2: • Reconstruction done using High-Level Trigger (HLT) -- computer farm • Reduces rate from Level-1 value of up to 100 kHz to final value of ~300 to 400 Hz • Slower, but determines energies and track momenta to high precision

  20. Level-1 Trigger • ~25 ns bunch crossings*2.2 interactions/crossing • Not all events can be stored/processed • L1 trigger electronics select 50-100 kHz of interesting events • e/g trigger: • 8 or 12 GeV threshold • ~100% efficient Calorimeter Trigger Muon Trigger RPC CSC DT HF HCAL ECAL Local CSC Trigger Local DT Trigger RegionalCalorimeterTrigger PatternComparator Trigger CSC TrackFinder DT TrackFinder GlobalCalorimeterTrigger 40 MHz pipeline, latency < 3.2 μs Global Muon Trigger e, J, ET, HT, ETmiss 4 m Global Trigger max. 100 kHz L1 Accept

  21. Computing • CMS is dependent on computing for transmitting, storing, and processing data • Every collision event ~0.2MB, and we record ~300 events/s • Needs to be shared with ~2000 collaborators around the world • Uses “tiered” system to organize responsibilities among many computing facilities around the world • One Tier0: CERN • Several Tier1s: One per country, FNAL in US • Dozens of Tier2s: One is here at UW-Madison • I was involved with Tier2 responsibilities (production of montecarlo simulations for collaboration, support of end-user analysis…) Tier0: CERN Tier2: UW-Madison Tier1: Fermilab Many other computing facilities not shown

  22. Data • Data entirely collected in 2010 • Total of 36 pb-1 of high quality data (all subdetectors working well) • Required events to pass a trigger requiring the presence of at least one high-energy photon • Trigger required a clustered deposit of energy that passes: • ET > minimum thresh (20 GeV in early runs, and raised as luminosity increased) • Ratio of Hadronic E to Electromagnetic E < 0.15 • Energy shape ratio (called ‘R9’) < 0.98 in barrel of CMS (to remove anomalous ‘spikes’ from ionization of APD’s in barrel of CMS)

  23. Monte Carlo Predictions • Data is compared to predictions made by simulations of proton collisions • Simulations are made by software called Monte Carlo event generators • Two useful programs used in this analysis: • Pythia: simulates events of g+1 jet.Pythia can only simulate processes of 2->2. • Madgraph/Madevent: used to simulate g+n jets (n = 1 to 3).Madgraph does fixed order matrix element calculations of cross sections.Madgraph is interfaced to use Pythia for jet hadronization. • Both simulators used as input the same parton distribution functions • from the CTEQ collaboration Example diagram of a generated event

  24. Analysis Steps • Select events with at least one photon passing selection, then count number of jets above a pT threshold • Select signal from data: • Determine fraction of signal & background by fitting a distribution in which signal & background have different shapes • Correct for selection efficiency • efficiency = (number of photons passing some selection) / (all true hard-scattering photons) • Unsmear the measured jet distributions to obtain a distribution that may be compared directly with theoretical predictions (called “unfolding”)

  25. Analysis Flow Events • Final Plots: • σ(γ + ≥n jets) / σ(γ + ≥1 jets) • σ(γ + ≥n jets) / σ(γ + ≥(n-1) jets) • Where: • Ns=number of events with a prompt photon and n jets • U=Unsmearing (‘Unfolding’) correction • ε=Efficiency • Lint = integrated luminosity Event Selection Exclusive Njet distributions Find signal fraction Correct Njet dist. for efficiency Unfold Njet dist. Change Njet binning from exclusive to inclusive

  26. Event Selection • Pass single photon trigger • Photon passing: • pT > 75 GeV • |h|<1.4442 or 1.566<|h|<2.5 • Measuring photons is problematic in boundary region • Energy Isolation [next slide] • Jet, if present: • pT > 30 GeV • |h| < 2.4 • Loose Jet Identification [next slide] • Standard selection to selection high-quality proton-proton collision events • Removes events where beam interacted with beam pipe • The presence of a vertex close to nominal interaction point (|z|<24cm) Endcap Barrel Endcap

  27. Photon Selection • Photon Isolation quantities: • Sum of energy in cones aligned with a line from primary vertex to center of photon energy deposit in ECAL • Sums do not include small central region to avoid including photon energy itself • Radius of cone = 0.4 • Selection on isolation sums: • Track Iso < 2.0 GeV • EcalIso < 4.2 GeV • HcalIso < 2.2 GeV • Selection on photon energy itself: • Ratio of Hadronic E to Electromagnetic E < 0.05 To measure isolation of photon, energy is summed around the photon HCAL ECAL Tracker

  28. Photon Selection • Isolation sums around photons • True photons generally have lower values while Jets have higher values Remove > 4.2 GeV Remove > 2.0 GeV Remove > 2.2 GeV

  29. Jet Selection • Jets are collimated, clustered energy in the Tracker, ECAL, and HCAL within a maximum cone size of R = 0.5 • Jet selection is very loose, simply to remove noise or anomalous signals • Additional selection for jets: • Photon must not overlap with jet, DR(jet,leadg) > 0.5 • Jets not from the same pp collision were removed by requiring distance between jet vertex and event vertex < 0.2 cm • Charged HadronEnergyFraction > 0.0 • Charged Em Energy Fraction < 0.99 • Charged Multiplicity > 0 • Neutral Hadron Energy Fraction < 0.99 • Neutral EmEnergy Fraction < 0.99

  30. Number of Events • Number of events left after each selection • Jets leave deposits of energy in ECAL which are background to true photons • Isolation requirements removes a significant amount of these

  31. Lead photon; jet pT • pT distribution of lead photon and lead jet (if found) for both data and Madgraph MC • Used s from Madgraph to scale to data • Madgraph is leading-order and underestimates yield • Scaled by ~1.6 to better compare shapes • Will fit to a variable to determine amount of signal & background in data (shown in 2 slides) Prompt Photon Jet

  32. Jet Multiplicity • Exclusive number of jets above pT threshold • Madgraph samples simulated up to g+3 jets • pT distribution for 2nd and 3rd leading jet is modeled by Madgraph reasonably well Jet Multiplicity 2nd Jet pT 3rd Jet pT

  33. Signal Extraction • To measure number of signal event must measure fraction of signal in data • We use a shower-shape variable of the lead photon defined as sum over ECAL crystals in photon’s cluster: • Where: • Signal shower shape comes from MC, but background shape comes from data with a sideband selection Photon in Barrel Photon in Endcap

  34. Fitting template variable • Fit σiηiη to determine fraction of signal in data • Used Extended Maximum-Likelihood fits • Fits are performed separately in Barrel and Endcap, and for each # of jets • Jet distributions then scaled by these fractions Photon in Barrel Photon in Endcap

  35. Signal Fraction • Results of fits to σiηiη • Signal fraction was found to be generally higher in the barrel • Too few stats in the endcap for higher jet multiplicity • Used average of lower multiplicity bins

  36. Efficiency Correction • Efficiency = number of prompt photons passing selection / all prompt photons • Photon isolation selection efficiency depend on number of jets • Ultimately had to use efficiency from MC for high energy photons, but checked efficiency from MC against data for low energy photons • Pure sample of photons is hard to get with amount of data available • However, electrons & photons leave similar energy deposits in ECAL, so it is reasonable to use sample of electrons to find efficiency • We can use events of ‘pp -> Z -> ee’ for very pure sample of electrons

  37. Tag & Probe Fits • Found photon selection efficiency using events of pp -> Z -> ee • First, require the presence of electron passing tight selection • Next, require another electron which also came from the Z (the invariant mass of the electron pairs satisfy 60 < Minv(ee) < 120 GeV) • This method is called ‘Tag and Probe’ • Tag: Election passing tight selection & pT>20GeV • Probe: Electron with pT> 30 GeV • Also counted number of jets • Fits to invariant mass performed to determine amount of electrons before & after requiring probe electron to pass photon selecton

  38. Eff of Loose Photon Iso Probe/g in Barrel • Efficiency of photon selection vs number of jets with pT>30GeV • Using fits to Z mass • For photons with pT > 30 GeV • Efficiency decreases by a few % as number of jets increases Probe/g in Endcap

  39. Unsmearing Jet Multiplicity Madgraphg + jet Response Matrix • Due to detector resolution, number of jets found by detector may differ from number of generated jets • Must unsmear or ‘unfold’ to remove effects of measurement resolutions, systematic biases, and detection efficiency to determine “true” distribution • Shown here is a matrix from MC of number of generated jets vs number of measured jets • Called ‘response matrix’ • These are used to unsmear measured number of jets to obtain a distribution that can be compared to theory • Response matrices here from Pythia and Madgraph signal MC • rows are normalized to they sum to 1 for easy comparison

  40. Unsmearing Jet Multiplicity • Performed unsmearing using Bayesian (“iterative”) method with 4 iterations • Unfolding has an effect of a few % at 1 or 2 jet multiplicities, up to 50% at highest multiplicities

  41. Incl. Jet Multiplicity • Inclusive jet multiplicity, ratio of “≥njets” to “≥1jets” • Data is after all corrections and unfolding • Madgraph and Pythia comparison are with generated particles before any detector simulation • Data agrees well with madgraph up to ≥3jets • Pythia only simulates g+1 jet, and simulates showering

  42. Incl. Jet Mult Ratio • Inclusive jet multiplicity ratio of “≥njets” to “≥(n-1)jets” • Data is after all corrections and unfolding • Madgraph and Pythia comparison are with generated particles before any detector simulation • Data agrees well with madgraph up to ≥3jets • Pythia only simulates g+1 jet, and simulates showering

  43. Systematics • Largest Uncertainty is from uncertainty in jet energy • Affects the counting of jets above an pT threshold • Uncertainty of jet energy scale arises from: • Uncertainty in flavor composition between jets used to determine energy corrections and jets in γ+jets will add ~2% on uncertainty • Subtraction is performed remove 500 MeV to jets in events without pile–up, so we must add this to systematic uncertainty in jet energy • Uncertainty in energy corrections as function of jet η and pT • Uncertainty in efficiency of photon selection as function of number of jets • Uncertainty in signal fraction from different background template selection

  44. Systematics Details • Systematics on ratio “(njet)/ ((n-1)jet)” • Jet Energy Scale (+/- 1s to jet energies) • Background Template (different selection for efficiency extraction) • Selection Efficiency (using PythiavsMadgraph) • Unfolding (using response matrix from PythiavsMadgraph)

  45. Jet Multiplicity Results • Inclusive jet multiplicity agrees well with Madgraph in 2 &3 jet bins, data is higher than Madgraph in higher jet multiplicities • Systematics are higher for larger number of jets primarily due to jet energy uncertainty

  46. From W/Z+Jets • Another CMS analysis found number of jets in events with W or Z • They also measured ratio of number of events of“x+ ≥n jets” to “x+ ≥(n-1) jets” where x=W or Z • Mine was the first to use photon + jets

  47. Summary • Presented first measurement of jet rate in association with a high-pT photon • Results with 36pb-1 of data • Loose photon isolation selection • Jets with pT > 30 GeV, R=0.5, using anti-kT algorithm • Rates of jets in agreement with Madgraph simulations for ≥1 and ≥2 jets, but higher than predicted for ≥3 and ≥4 • This is expected because Madgraph sample used contains matrix elements for up to g+3jets • Data disagreement with Pythia is also expected because Pythia only simulates photon+1 jet, and uses showering to create more jets • Tuned Monte Carlo event generators can be used for new physics searches. Ex: • g+1 jet: background to H->gg • g+jets+missing ET: a signature for super-symmetry

  48. Backup

  49. MC Simulations • Events simulated with MadGraph • Fixed order matrix element calculations of cross sections • Generates multi-parton processes in hadronic collisions. • Hadronization simulation performed with Pythia 6 • Simulates development of underlying event • Generates jets from hadronization, also simulates parton showers, and initial and final state radiation • Detector simulated using GEANT4 • Toolkit for the simulation of the passage of particles through matter Hard scattering MadGraph Hadronization, showers, IFSR PYTHIA Detector simulation GEANT4 Reconstruction of event CMSSW

More Related