1 / 10

Diphoton + MET Uses of MET

Explore the use of MET in analyzing diphoton events at UC Santa Cruz in February 2013. Learn about photon calibration, control region studies, instrumental background estimation, and MET systematics. Investigate detailed samples, selection criteria, and implications for signal and background in a comprehensive study.

roane
Download Presentation

Diphoton + MET Uses of MET

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. Diphoton + MET Uses of MET Bruce Schumm UC Santa Cruz / SCIPP 18 February 2013 AdHoc EtMiss Discussion

  2. MET in the Diphoton analysis • Specific to events with identified photons (should share concerns with, e.g., H • Need to apply photon calibration to identified photons • ALSO need to apply photon calibration to identified LOOSE photons for control region studies •  Egamma10 NoTauLoosePhotonRef chosen after extensive studies. “STVF” found to be detrimental. • Documented in ATL-COM-PHYS-2013-109

  3. MET in the Diphoton analysis • Analysis requires two tight, isolated photons • Instrumental (“QCD”) background estimated via 8 control samples based on requiring one “control” photon that: 1) Satisfies loose 2) Has at least one of two shower-shape ID variables that failes tight cut. • Eight samples from A) Require additional tight photon or not; B) Control photon isolated or not; C) Require 50 or 75 GeV Et for control (and tight) photon.

  4. 20 fb-1 Background vs. Meff and MET

  5. Signal vs. Meff and MET 20 fb-1 at (Mgluino,Mbino) = (1300,1050)

  6. Selection FOM vs. Meff and MET 20 fb-1 at (Mgluino,Mbino) = (1300,1050)

  7. MET Issues • Are latest (“post-Moriond”?) object definitions included in p3128 EGamma10NoTauLoose MET? • We will need in any case to assemble our own “fluctuated” EGamma10NoTauLoose in order to do systematic studies • But for now, background estimates largely insensitive to MET systematics (data-driven), so could use intrinsic p1328 variable if “approved” • Will definitely need to be able to assemble EGamma10NoTauLoose from scratch soon though.

More Related