ttbar jets Update on QCD Estimation William Edson
ttbar τ + jets: Update on QCD Estimation William Edson SUNY at Albany
MET Signal vs Control vs MC Backgrounds Each Sample Normalized to All Samples Normalized to One Sum of Integrals
Tau p. T Signal vs Control vs MC Backgrounds Each Sample Normalized to All Samples Normalized to One Sum of Integrals
MT Signal vs Control vs MC Backgrounds Each Sample Normalized to All Samples Normalized to One Sum of Integrals
From Trigger Public Results Twikis tau 29_medium using Z→ττ Xe 30_no. Mu and xe 40_no. Mu triggers
Turn on Curve Fits �
Trigger Efficiency vs MET Periods B-K Trigger Periods L-M Trigger
Trigger Efficiency vs tau p. T Periods B-K Trigger Periods L-M Trigger
Chi Fit Function Validation Using Random Filled Functions • Column 1: Functions used for first histogram (kept constant through all tests) • Column 2: Functions used for second histogram (varied for each test) • Column 3: Resulting Ensemble Fit
Chi Fit Function Validation Using Random Filled Functions • Column 1: Functions used for first histogram (kept constant through all tests) • Column 2: Functions used for second histogram (varied for each test) • Column 3: Resulting Ensemble Fit
Back-up
Fit Selection Results Analysis Stat Percent (±) Syst Percent Up Syst Percent Down Final Analysis 5. 96 18. 03 18. 69 Group 1 -Prong 9. 6 15. 5 16. 3
Unc Var. Up (pb) Var. Down (pb) Linear Corrrection 0. 97 0. 96 JER 3. 83 JRE 0. 04 JES 19. 83 18. 86 JVF SF 0. 76 0. 74 Btag SF 4. 27 3. 92 MET 4. 62 5. 31 Tau Trigger SF 4. 22 5. 38 TES 1. 79 Tau Eveto SF 0. 04 W+jets Normalization 11. 06 10. 63 QCD Selection 4. 80 QCD Template Bin/Range 4. 77 9. 02 MC Generator 11. 34 ISR/FSR 7. 39 PDF 2. 32 Trigger Efficiency 4. 83 8. 00 Tau. ID 7. 34 Lumi 3. 00
Unc Var. Up (percent) Var. Down (percent) Group 1 -prong Up Group 1 -prong Down Linear Corrrection 0. 58 - - JER 2. 30 1. 0 JRE 0. 02 1. 0 JES 11. 90 11. 32 10. 0 10. 8 JVF SF 0. 45 0. 44 < 1 Btag SF 2. 56 2. 35 2. 0 MET 2. 77 3. 19 < 1 Tau Trigger SF 2. 53 3. 22 5. 5 4. 7 TES 1. 08 2. 1 Tau Eveto SF 0. 03 - - W+jets Normalization 6. 64 6. 37 4. 1 QCD Template Shape 2. 88 1. 8 QCD Template Bin/Range 2. 86 5. 41 5. 1 MC Generator 6. 80 4. 2 ISR/FSR 4. 43 3. 1 PDF 1. 39 2 2 Trigger Efficiency 2. 9 4. 8 Tau. ID 4. 4 4 4 Lumi 1. 8
Further Cut Validation Plots Nbjets ≥ 1 Tau p. T > 40 Ge. V
Intra-PDF Uncertainty Results � CT 10: � ± 2. 32093 � MSTW: � + 1. 29293 / - 1. 38225 � NNPDF: � ± 1. 20644
Envelope Results Therefore the final uncertainty is equivalent to the CT 10 Intra Unc: ± 2. 32093
QCD Bin/Range Sample Fraction Cor. Fraction σ Variation (%) Nominal 0. 691497 0. 69115844 166. 7161572 - - Range+1 0. 685245 0. 685212649 165. 2819571 -1. 43420016 -0. 860264648 Range+2 0. 684087 0. 684111365 165. 0163135 -1. 69984376 -1. 019603494 Range+3 0. 680152 0. 680369092 164. 1136299 -2. 60252733 -1. 561052853 Range-1 0. 708654 0. 707475131 170. 6519493 3. 9357921 2. 360774244 Range-2 0. 674656 0. 675142273 162. 8528551 -3. 86330214 -2. 317293177 Range-3 0. 686839 0. 686728578 165. 6476184 -1. 06853877 -0. 640932939 Bins+1 0. 712367 0. 711006277 171. 5037064 4. 787549171 2. 871676777 Bins+2 0. 66001 0. 6612136 159. 4930829 -7. 2230743 -4. 332558059 Bins-1 0. 652323 0. 653903091 157. 7296957 -8. 98646149 -5. 390276285 Bins-2 0. 680357 0. 680564051 164. 1606566 -2. 55550061 -1. 532845199 Range increases/decreases in steps of 20 Ge. V Bin amount increases/decreases in steps of 5
MC Generator Sample Fraction Cor. Fraction σ Variation (absolute) Variation (%) 0. 691497 0. 69115844 166. 7161572 - - 0. 704682 0. 70369767 141. 7262448 13. 69472173 8. 214393829 0. 691497 0. 69115844 166. 7161572 11. 29519073 6. 775102618 SYST_At. F_105860 0. 721128 0. 719338184 147. 5099697 4. 809637762 2. 884925998 SYST_At. F_117050 0. 663466 0. 664500333 142. 700332 - - SYST_Full_117050 0. 696679 0. 696086638 155. 4209665 - - Nominal Alp. Herwig (baseline) MC@NLO (105200) 1. 1) fullsim mc 11 c POWHEG+f. Pythia sample 117050 (SYST_Full_117050) and MC@NLO+f. Herwig sample 105200 (MC@NLO(105200)) 1. 2) fullsim mc 11 c POWHEG+f. Pythia sample 117050 (SYST_Full_117050) and the fullsim mc 11 c ALPGEN+HERWIG samples (Alp. Herwig(baseline)) 1. 3) Atl. Fast 2 mc 11 b POWHEG+f. Pythia sample 117050 (SYST_At. F_117050) POWHEG+f. Herwig sample 105860 (SYST_At. F_105860)
Mean Values of Ensemble Fits Input Fraction Previous Gaussian Mean Output Fraction Unc. 0. 1 -0. 0998291 0. 00487524 -0. 0446980 0. 00328233 0. 2 0. 0501427 0. 00241776 0. 0951311 0. 00259107 0. 3 0. 204145 0. 00187353 0. 238714 0. 00232490 0. 4 0. 335251 0. 00170598 0. 375513 0. 00173264 0. 5 0. 460622 0. 00147548 0. 493003 0. 00146445 0. 6 0. 580640 0. 00134429 0. 604560 0. 00130854 0. 7 0. 689419 0. 00114811 0. 710087 0. 00111043 0. 8 0. 794341 0. 00116489 0. 805370 0. 00103862 0. 9 0. 894616 0. 00111430 0. 903587 0. 000966135
Linearity Test to All Values � Y(0): -0. 127757 ± 0. 00142161 � Slope: 1. 18358 ± 0. 00252649 � Chi 2: 34. 4482 NDF: 8997
Adjust Range for Linear Fit? Range Y(0) Slope Corrected σ 0. 1 – 0. 9 -0. 127757 1. 18358 166. 9633031 0. 2 – 0. 9 -0. 100011 1. 14196 167. 1877651 0. 3 – 0. 9 -0. 0669342 1. 0947 167. 1171989 0. 4 – 0. 9 -0. 0352561 1. 0515 166. 7161572
Top Mass Sample Nominal SYST_Full_117050 167. 5 170. 0 175. 0 177. 5 Fraction Cor. Fraction σ Variation (absolute) Variation (%) 0. 691497 0. 69115844 166. 7161572 - - 0. 696679 0. 696086638 155. 4209665 - - 0. 680298 0. 680507941 174. 4111694 18. 99020294 11. 39073936 0. 689551 0. 689307751 163. 0755472 7. 654580765 4. 591385078 0. 694819 0. 694317737 147. 5410892 -7. 87987725 -4. 726522839 0. 673263 0. 673817499 136. 8370372 -18. 5839292 -11. 14704751
MC Tau Plots MC Tau Count MC Tau Children Count MC Tau Children pdg. ID Leptonic pdg. ID values: e → 11, μ → 13, τ → 15
Fits/Hists for Ensemble Tests
Cutflow � � � C 0: GRL C 1: Trigger C 2: Primary vertex with ntracks > 4 C 3: Jet cleaning C 4: Lepton Veto C 5: tau n ≥ 1 C 6: njets >= 4 with eta < 2. 5 and |jvf| > 0. 75 C 7: MET > 60 Ge. V C 8: MT < 80 Ge. V C 9: >= 1 bjet C 10: Trigger matched tau n ≥ 1 and p. T >= 40 Ge. V C 11: MC tau object match
Chi-squared minimization � Equation: � N(x): total number of events of type x for distribution � n(x)i: number of events in bin of type x � frac(Sig): fraction of N(Remain) expected to be Signal � binfrac(x)i: fraction of events in bin of type x expected from MC or template � σi: uncertainty in bin i
Chi-squared minimization cont. � σi determined using factors for: � bin error: data signal, MC QCD template other backgrounds, MC � statistical error: data: signal region other backgrounds, MC signal, MC QCD template (uncertainty of background region data and all MC background region carried through via default Sum. W 2
Highest p. T bjet reconstruction � Results for plot: � chi-square: 9. 818 � p-value: 0. 7753 � ndf: 14 � chi/ndf: 0. 7012
2 nd Highest p. T bjet reconstruction � Results for plot: � chi-square: 13. 66 � p-value: 0. 5517 � ndf: 15 � chi/ndf: 0. 9107
Dijet Mass reconstruction � Results for plot: � chi-square: 15. 47 � p-value: 0. 6297 � ndf: 18 � chi/ndf: 0. 8594
MET � Results for plot: � chi-square: 15. 87 � p-value: 0. 1971 � ndf: 12 � chi/ndf: 1. 323
Closest p. T bjet reconstruction � Results for plot: � chi-square: 14. 39 � p-value: 0. 2123 � ndf: 11 � chi/ndf: 1. 308
New Event Selection Verification (Only uses MC so Excludes QCD) Cut Sig Evts Fakes Sig Eff. Fake Ratio Rej Fact. Sig/ sqrt(Bkgd) Sig/ Sqrt(Sig+ Bkgd) C 5 Lep Veto 5863 1451086 - - - 4. 867 4. 857 C 6 ntaus > 0 5863 138276 1 0. 09529 0. 04240 15. 77 15. 44 C 7 njets 3191 11025 0. 5443 0. 07973 0. 5318 30. 39 26. 76 C 8 MET 2583 7598 0. 8095 0. 6892 0. 41998 29. 63 25. 60 C 9 MT 1892 3968 0. 7325 0. 5222 0. 6510 30. 04 24. 72 C 10 bjet 1650 1230 0. 8721 0. 30998 1. 538 47. 05 30. 75 C 12 Trig match 941 335 0. 5703 0. 2724 4. 925 51. 41 26. 34
- Slides: 34