1 / 35

Summary of Commissioning Studies Top Physics Group

Summary of Commissioning Studies Top Physics Group. M. Cobal, University of Udine. Top Working Group, CERN October 29 th , 2003. Top Quark Event Yields. NLO Xsect for t-tbar production = 833 pb 8 million t-tbar pairs produced per 10 fb -1

quinta
Download Presentation

Summary of Commissioning Studies Top Physics 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 Commissioning StudiesTop Physics Group M. Cobal, University of Udine Top Working Group, CERN October 29th, 2003

  2. Top Quark Event Yields • NLO Xsect for t-tbar production = 833 pb • 8 million t-tbar pairs produced per 10 fb-1 • We reconstruct the top mass in the lepton+jets channel Clean sample (1 isolated lepton, high Etmiss).

  3. Statistical Error In the single lepton channel, where we plan to measure m(top) with the best precision: L = 1x1033 cm-2s-1

  4. Top mass precision One top can be directly reconstructed Reconstruct t  Wb  (jj)b Selection cuts: 1 iso lep, Pt > 20 GeV, |h| < 2.5, Etmiss > 20 At least 4 jets with Pt > 40 GeV and |h| < 2.5 At least 2 b-tagged jets Selection effic. = 5%  126k events, with S/B = 65

  5. Two methods: • Reconstruction of the hadronic part • W from jet pair with the closest invariant • mass to m(W) cut on |mjj-mW| < 20 GeV • Association of W with a b-tagged-jet • Cut on |mjjb-<mjjb>| < 35 GeV • Kinematic fit The leptonic part is reconstructed • |mlnb-<mjjb>| < 35 GeV • -30k signal events • -14k bkgnd events • Kinematic fit to ttbar, with m(top) and m(W) mass constraints • Main Background is the combinatorial one.

  6. Systematics for the lepton + jet analyses At the beginning the jet energy scale will be not known as well as 1%

  7. Energy scale • From M. Bosman: • Will start to calibrate calorimeter with weights from MC • Assume: • EM scale correct to the percent level from the very beginning • fragmentation correctly described in MC • corrections for calorimeter non-compensation and dead material •  correct calibration coefficients should be predicted • Firstcheck fragmentation function with the tracker, thendijet • differential cross-section, h distribution, check pT balancing across • different detectors, etc. • Start lo look at in-situ calibration samples: At the very beginning, start • with W->jj.

  8. Taking TDR numbers: 1500 ttbar->bW(ln)bW(jj) requiring 4 jets above 40 GeV/day at low L. In 1 week: 10k W to jj decays In1 month: 35k W to jj decays Jets have a pT distribution: ~ 40 to 140 GeV with changing calibration. Consider pT bins of 10 GeV, and h bins of 0.3. There are 150 "samples" to consider: After a week, about 70 W per "sample" or a statistical error on m(W) sigma(about 8 GeV with perfect calibration) divided by sqrt(70) This makes ~1% of statistical error On top there is the systematic errors due to FSR and jet overlap...

  9. b-jet scale Observed linearity dependence of the top mass shift on the b-jet absolute scale error for the inclusive sample. Can scale correspondingly: HadronicKin fit 1% jet energy uncertainty  dM(top) = 0.7 0.7 GeV 5% jet energy uncertainty  dM(top) = 0.7*5 = 3.5 3.5 GeV 10% jet energy uncertainty  dM(top) = 0.7*10 = 7 7 GeV

  10. Light-jet scale Here as well linear dependence If one performs constrained fit on W-mass, is less important than b-jet scale. Can scale correspondingly: Hadronic 1% jet energy uncertainty  dM(top) < 0.7 GeV 10% jet energy uncertainty  dM(top) = 3 GeV

  11. B-tagging From S. Rozanov: Main effects of initial layout: 2 pixel barrel layersrejection of light jets reduced by ~30%. Another important parameter is the efficiency of the pixel chips and modules (not predicted). Effect of alignment precision: Precise alignment of ID could be reached only after a FEW MONTHS work. (studies undergoing) Impact of misalignment much higher than effect of 2 or 3 layers. Can also compromise a jet energy calibration based on W from tt at startup: could be difficult to select W’s over background.

  12. Estimates for initial (t-tbar) measurement • Initial lum = 1x1033 cm-2 s-1  t-tbar production rate = 0.85 Hz • ~ 500k t-tbar events produced per week • With same analysis and detector performance as in Physics TDR, predict: • Selection of 8000 single lepton plus jets events, S/B = 65 • In ± 35 GeV window around m(top), would have: • 1900 signal events • 900 bkgnd events (dominated by “wrong combinations” from t-tbar events)  stat error on (t-tbar)  2% after 1 week

  13. What happens with degraded initial detector performance? • eg. Consider case where b-tagging is not available in early running: • Drop b-tagging requirement: signal effic. increases from 5% to 20%, but bkgnd increases faster • For one week, would select 32000 signal events, but with S/B = 6 • Biggest problem comes from large increase in combinatorial bkgnd when trying to reconstruct t  Wb  (jj)b with b-tagging

  14. W  jj t  Wb  (jj)b • Fit of m(jjb) spectrum provides Xsect measurement with stat. error  7% • Even with no b-tagging, can measure (t-tbar) to < 10% with two days of integrated luminosity at 1x1033

  15. Results presented In Athens: • An initial uncertainty of 5% on the b-jet energy scale, gives a top mass uncertainty of 3.5 for the mass reconstuction. If we go to 10% , the uncertainty on the top mass is of ~7 GeV • An initial uncertainty of 10% on the light jet energy scale, gives a top mass uncertainty of 3 GeV for the mass reconstuction. • Kinematic fit less sensitive to light jet energy scale. But can have very large combinatorial background in case of b-tagging not working • After 1 week of data taking we should be able to measure the cross-section with a 2% statistical error • Even without b-tagging, with two days of data taking, can measure s at < 10% (stat. error)

  16. In Prague: • First evaluation of Mtop, assuming no b-tagging at the startup (V. Kostiouchine) • Investigation of differences found in the combinatorial backgnd between TDR and DC1 (V. Kostiouchine)

  17. Mtop reconstruction in ATLAS at startup Work done by V. Kostioukhine Assumptions: • No jet energy calibration, no b-tagging. • Uniform calorimeter response • Good lepton identification.

  18. TDR signal+backgrounds estimation In case of no b-tag: tt signal: ~500k evt ( 4 times reduction due to b-tag) W+jets: ~85k evt (50 times reduction due to b-tag)

  19. Signal selection without b-tag Lepton+4jets exactly (DR=0.4) e: signal ~76% with respect to 4jet W+jets ~83% with respect to 4jets Select among them 2 jets with maximal jjj jj Select the 3-jet combination with maximal

  20. A kinematical constraint fit can be used for a further selection: MW1=MW2 and Mt1=Mt2.An approximate calibration is obtained with the W peak • Select the combination with lowest 2 out of the 3 available. Event is accepted is this minimal 2 is lessthan a fixed value. Having 3 jets from t-quark decay,there are 3 possible jet assignments for W(jj)b.

  21. Reconstructed Mtop Big 2 events

  22. W+jets selection: e with the same cuts ~9% (~8k evt) Signal selection:e ( 4jets exactly+2 cut) ~40% (~200k evt) 3-jet massW+jets 2 signal 2 W+jets

  23. Preliminary results with full simulation TDR top sample (same cuts as fast sim.) W mass Top mass

  24. W mass DC1 sample (same cuts as fast sim.) Top mass

  25. Conclusions on Mtop • Attsignal can be selected without b-tagging and precise jet energy calibration • Signal / backgnd ratio is ~20 in this case (~70 in the region Mjjb<200 GeV) . Here only W+jetsevents are considered as background. • Such a clean sample could be also used for jet energy calibration. • Results confirmed by full simulation

  26. Combinatorial background in DC1 data Work done by V. Kostioukhine • Increase of the combinatorial background in DC1 samples with respect to the TDR ones • Vadim checked better and..... W(TDR) W (DC1)

  27. TDR +jets sample Selection: 1 lep with Pt>20 GeV, Pt miss >20 GeV, at least 4 jets with Pt>40GeV, 2 b-jets (parton level). 2 non-b jets with min|Mjet-jet – MW| taken as W decay products. b jet is selected so that Ptjet-jet-b -> max jj mass jjb mass top t-quark peak after application of constraint fit

  28. DC1 +jets sample DC1 sample with application of “TDR-like” generation level cuts DC1 sample Same selection jjb mass jj mass jj mass jjb mass top top t-quark peak after application of constraint fit

  29. DC1 e+jets sample DC1 sample with application of “TDR-like” generation level cuts DC1 sample Selection: the same jjb mass jj mass jj mass jjb mass top top t-quark peak after application of constraint fit

  30. DC1 summary e,+jets sample DC1 sample with application of “TDR-like” generation level cuts DC1 sample Same selection jjb mass jjb mass jj mass jj mass top top t-quark peak after application of constraint fit  agreement with TDR !!

  31. Next Steps • More detailed MC study: W + jets background. • Study of background level dependence on b-tagging e. • Measure the cross-section and top mass assuming different efficiency for the b-tagging (and no b-tagging at all) and looking at various channels. What is the minimal b-tagging needed? ……………

  32. First look at data in 2007 • Study of high pT isolated electrons and muons • Select a “standard” top sample, and a “golden” top sample with tighter cuts. • Try to reconstruct the two top masses (in single lepton events, one top decays hadronically, the other one leptonically) • Take top events: try a first measurement of the cross section, and of the mass in various channels (as a cross check, since systematic errors are different)

  33. t  bjj W  jj W  jj M (jj) M (bjj) M (jj)  (tt) : initial measurement dominated by L and detector uncertainties  10-20%? In addition, very pessimistic scenario considered : b-tag not yet available  S increases by ~ 4  S/B decreases from 65 to 6  large combinatorial background Still a top peak is visible Statistical error from fit: from 2.5% (perfect b-tag) to 7% (no b-tag) for ~ one week What about B systematics ? difference of distributions for events in the top peak and for events in the side-bands Feedback on detector performance: -- m (top) wrong  jet scale ? -- golden-plated sample to commission b-tag

  34. W  jj t  Wb  (jj)b • Fit of m(jjb) spectrum provides Xsect measurement with stat. error  7% • Even with no b-tagging, can measure (t-tbar) to < 10% with two days of integrated luminosity at 1x1033

  35. Conclusions • An initial uncertainty of 5% on the b-jet energy scale, gives a top mass uncertainty of 3.5 for the mass reconstuction. If we go to 10% , the uncertainty on the top mass is of 7 GeV • An initial uncertainty of 10% on the light jet energy scale, gives a top mass uncertainty of 3 GeV for the mass reconstuction. • Kinematic fit less sensitive to light jet energy scale. But can have very large combinatorial background in case of b-tagging not working • After 1 week of data taking we should be able to measure the cross-section with a 2% statistical error • Even without b-tagging, with two days of data taking, can measure s at < 10% (stat. error) • Additional studies (e.g. di-lepton) undergoing

More Related