Tau ID systematics in the Z lh cross section measurement

Similar documents
Electron and Photon Reconstruction and Identification with the ATLAS Detector

MIP Reconstruction Techniques and Minimum Spanning Tree Clustering

Study of the Higgs boson coupling to the top quark and of the b jet identification with the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider.

Direct photon measurements in ALICE. Alexis Mas for the ALICE collaboration

HLT Hadronic L0 Confirmation Matching VeLo tracks to L0 HCAL objects

b-jet identification at High Level Trigger in CMS

Monte Carlo programs

PoS(EPS-HEP2017)523. The CMS trigger in Run 2. Mia Tosi CERN

arxiv:hep-ph/ v1 11 Mar 2002

Deep Learning Photon Identification in a SuperGranular Calorimeter

Jet algoritms Pavel Weber , KIP Jet Algorithms 1/23

Tracking and flavour tagging selection in the ATLAS High Level Trigger

Boosted ZHLL analysis. Wataru OKAMURA 27/12/2011

Precision Timing in High Pile-Up and Time-Based Vertex Reconstruction

LHCb Topological Trigger Reoptimization

A New Segment Building Algorithm for the Cathode Strip Chambers in the CMS Experiment

Xianyou Wang,Guoming Chen, Zheng Wang, Xianwei Meng, Jan Wang. Institute of High Energy Physics, CAS, Beijing

Robustness Studies of the CMS Tracker for the LHC Upgrade Phase I

Tracking POG Update. Tracking POG Meeting March 17, 2009

Early experience with the Run 2 ATLAS analysis model

Meeting. Wataru OKAMURA 26/12/2011 Osaka ATLAS meeting

Fast pattern recognition with the ATLAS L1Track trigger for the HL-LHC

Recasting LHC analyses with MADANALYSIS 5

ATLAS ITk Layout Design and Optimisation

Performance of Tracking, b-tagging and Jet/MET reconstruction at the CMS High Level Trigger

Charged Particle Reconstruction in HIC Detectors

OPERA: A First ντ Appearance Candidate

First LHCb measurement with data from the LHC Run 2

THE ATLAS INNER DETECTOR OPERATION, DATA QUALITY AND TRACKING PERFORMANCE.

Analogue, Digital and Semi-Digital Energy Reconstruction in the CALICE AHCAL

ATLAS, CMS and LHCb Trigger systems for flavour physics

π ± Charge Exchange Cross Section on Liquid Argon

Design of the new ATLAS Inner Tracker (ITk) for the High Luminosity LHC

Event Displays and LArg

8.882 LHC Physics. Track Reconstruction and Fitting. [Lecture 8, March 2, 2009] Experimental Methods and Measurements

CMS Simulation Software

ATLAS Simulation Computing Performance and Pile-Up Simulation in ATLAS

Trigger information in the Atlantis event display

PoS(IHEP-LHC-2011)002

Performance of the ATLAS Inner Detector at the LHC

Automated reconstruction of LAr events at Warwick. J.J. Back, G.J. Barker, S.B. Boyd, A.J. Bennieston, B. Morgan, YR

PoS(EPS-HEP2017)492. Performance and recent developments of the real-time track reconstruction and alignment of the LHCb detector.

The ATLAS Trigger System: Past, Present and Future

Adding timing to the VELO

Modules and Front-End Electronics Developments for the ATLAS ITk Strips Upgrade

Monte Carlo Tuning of LUARLW Mode

PoS(TIPP2014)204. Tracking at High Level Trigger in CMS. Mia TOSI Universitá degli Studi di Padova e INFN (IT)

Tracking and Vertex reconstruction at LHCb for Run II

The ALICE electromagnetic calorimeter high level triggers

Reducing CPU Consumption of Geant4 Simulation in ATLAS

SoLID GEM Detectors in US

Rivet. July , CERN

The Pandora Software Development Kit for. - Particle Flow Calorimetry. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. Related content.

EicRoot software framework

ATLAS NOTE. December 4, ATLAS offline reconstruction timing improvements for run-2. The ATLAS Collaboration. Abstract

Cut per region. Marc Verderi GEANT4 collaboration meeting 01/10/2002

Physics CMS Muon High Level Trigger: Level 3 reconstruction algorithm development and optimization

Modeling Resource Utilization of a Large Data Acquisition System

The Belle II Software From Detector Signals to Physics Results

Work in Tbilisi. David Mchedlishvili (SMART EDM_lab of TSU) GGSWBS , Tbilisi. Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation

Optimisation Studies for the CLIC Vertex-Detector Geometry

LArTPC Reconstruction Challenges

Fast simulation in ATLAS

Level 0 trigger decision unit for the LHCb experiment

Muon Reconstruction and Identification in CMS

b-jet slice performances at L2/EF

SiD Simulation & Reconstruction. Norman Graf (for the sim/reco team) LCWS 2010, Beijing March 28, 2010

LVL1 e/γ RoI Builder Prototype

Simulation Techniques Using Geant4

RT2016 Phase-I Trigger Readout Electronics Upgrade for the ATLAS Liquid-Argon Calorimeters

Update on Energy Resolution of

LAr Event Reconstruction with the PANDORA Software Development Kit

Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering at Jefferson Lab

PoS(High-pT physics09)036

Track reconstruction with the CMS tracking detector

A new method of The Monte Carlo Simulation based on Hit stream for the LHAASO

Frank Gaede, ECFA SW & Physics Simulation Phone Meeting, June 21, News on Core Software Tools

Calorimeter Object Status. A&S week, Feb M. Chefdeville, LAPP, Annecy

ATLAS Tracking Detector Upgrade studies using the Fast Simulation Engine

A flexible approach to clusterfinding in generic calorimeters of the FLC detector

CSCS CERN videoconference CFD applications

The performance of the ATLAS Inner Detector Trigger Algorithms in pp collisions at the LHC

Studies of the KS and KL lifetimes and

PoS(ACAT08)101. An Overview of the b-tagging Algorithms in the CMS Offline Software. Christophe Saout

Geant4 Computing Performance Benchmarking and Monitoring

Topics for the TKR Software Review Tracy Usher, Leon Rochester

Event reconstruction in STAR

The full detector simulation for the ATLAS experiment: status and outlook

Integrated CMOS sensor technologies for the CLIC tracker

Track reconstruction for the Mu3e experiment based on a novel Multiple Scattering fit Alexandr Kozlinskiy (Mainz, KPH) for the Mu3e collaboration

Belle II Software and Computing

How to discover the Higgs Boson in an Oracle database. Maaike Limper

ATLAS PILE-UP AND OVERLAY SIMULATION

The ALICE High Level Trigger

Primary Vertex Reconstruction at LHCb

ATLAS NOTE ATLAS-CONF July 20, Commissioning of the ATLAS high-performance b-tagging algorithms in the 7 TeV collision data

FAMOS: A Dynamically Configurable System for Fast Simulation and Reconstruction for CMS

L2 Global Status and Opportunities

Alignment of the ATLAS Inner Detector

Automatic registration of terrestrial laser scans for geological deformation monitoring

Transcription:

Tau ID systematics in the Z lh cross section measurement Frank Seifert1 supervised by Arno Straessner1, Wolfgang Mader1 In collaboration with Michel Trottier McDonald2 Technische Universität Dresden 1 2 Simon Fraser University 1

Outline 1. Motivation 2. Method of cross section measurement 3. Tau ID and efficiencies 4. Evaluation of systematic uncertainties 5. Conclusion 2

1. Motivation Measurement of the Z cross section in ATLAS is an important issue to understand and measure this channel as relevant background for e.g.: MSSM Higgs searches: H/A/h SM Higgs searches: H ZZ ll Z' searches: Z' Relevant for the precision of that measurement are: Statistical uncertainties Systematical uncertainties ATLAS Collaboration, Expected Performance of the ATLAS Experiment Detector, Trigger and Physics, CERN-OPEN-2008-020 3

2. Method of cross section measurement measured NZ lh+ 3 (Z lh+3 ) = (Z ) xbr( lh+3 ) = Lintegrated with: x 1 AZ CZ AZ =: kinematic/geometrical acceptance of the decay products CZ =: Efficiency of analysis cuts Includes the efficiencies of reconstructing and identifying the electron/muon and the hadronical decaying tau. Includes efficiency of kinematic cuts to select the signal. h 1 1 2 2 (e,µ) Z 3 4

2. Method of cross section measurement Requirements considered for the selection: h 1 reconstructed tau candidate, pt > 15 GeV 1 1 electron or muon, pt > 15 GeV Electron/Muon (lep) isolation Tau passed ID requirements Dilepton veto cos[ (lep)- (ETmiss) ] + cos[ ( h)- (ETmiss) ] > 0.15 Transverse mass MT(lep,ETmiss) < 50 GeV h : Nprong= 1 or 3, charge = 1 35 GeV < Mvis(lep, h) < 75 GeV Opposite charge of lep and h 1 Z 2 2 (e,µ) 3 5

3. Tau ID and efficiencies Reminder: Several methods for Tau identification have been developed Cut based ID (Cuts) uses 3 variables Boosted Decision Tree (BDT) uses 8 variables Projective Likelihood (LLH) uses 7 variables Evaluation of tau ID systematics based on Monte Carlo study. Tau Identification efficiency: ℇ ID= # (truth & ID Matched) # (truth) in the kinematic and geometrical acceptance (pt > 15GeV, < 2.5) Analysis of efficiencies and systematic uncertainties depending on: 1 prong, 3 prong, multi prong taus High and low multiplicity of primary vertices in the event pt of the tau For various IDs in combination with an electron veto 6

4. Evaluation of systematic uncertainties Systematic uncertainties include the following contributions: Different shower models Geometry of the detector Different Monte Carlo generators and underlying event models Different noise thresholds of calo cells for cluster reconstruction Various types have been studied, highest for each contribution has been taken Relevant ID/veto combination for Z l h is expected to be: Cuts medium (1 prong tau), Cuts tight (3 prong tau) and tight el. veto 7

Different shower model and geometry Work in progress p 8

Different Monte Carlo generators and underlying event models Work in progress p 9

Different noise thresholds for calorimeter cluster reconstruction Work in progress p 10

4. Evaluation of systematic uncertainties Relevant types of systematics for each contribution: Highest types added in quadrature to obtain the total systematic uncertainty (for each ID electron veto combination and bin in n prong, Nvxp, pt( ) ) Example for Cuts medium (1 prong tau), Cuts tight (3 prong tau) and tight el. veto: 1 prong Work in progress 3 prong Work in progress Cuts 11

1 prong 3 prong Work in Work in LLH BDT progress progress Work in Work in progress progress 12

5. Conclusion Biggest differences in the lowest pt bin (15 20 GeV) high pt bins pretty stable. (due to high shower model contribution in low pt range) LLH shows higher efficiency than BDT and slightly higher than cuts. Overall the systematic uncertainties of Cuts and LLH are quite comparable. With BDT one obtain on average higher systematic uncertainties. Concluding the systematics for tau ID efficiencies are in order ~8 12% relative to the efficiency itself (depending of the ID and bin). 13

Backup 14

Comparison of Cuts, LLH and BDT for the ID veto combination: Medium ID (1 track tau), tight ID (3 track tau) and tight el. Veto. ATLAS work in progress 15

All ID/veto combinations considered in the study 16