acermc and isr/fsr systematics at atlas liza mijovic, borut kersevan jozef stefan inst. univ. of...
TRANSCRIPT
AcerMC and ISR/FSR systematics at ATLAS
Liza Mijovic, Borut Kersevan Jozef Stefan Inst.Univ. of Ljubljana
ATLAS approach:• Generator level studies• Parameters treated• Interesting examples
Top Physics Workshop (Grenoble 2007)
2
Impact of different models Recently a study of top mass reconstruction using tt~ was done using:
MC@NLO (Herwig+Jimmy) AcerMC (Pythia – new showering and UE model) Full detector simulation The observed discrepancy caused quite a few raised eyebrows..
We cannot know offhand which answer is correct!
3
Impact of different models cont’d The first thought was that NLO corrections impact the event
shapes more than anyone suspected... ...But the difference turns out to be purely parton-shower
related! We just plugged the AcerMC events into Herwig and..
The difference becomes really small..
We cannot know offhand which answer - Herwig/Pythia showers and UE -is correct! We need the data!
4
QCD-activity related systematics
From the above example one can see that the predictions are by no means unique; using the standard division one needs to have a look at: Initial state radiation Final state radiation Underlying event modeling PDFs, etc...
I think I don’t need to stress that the precision in top measurements at the LHC will be systematics-dominated..
At ATLAS the UE is handled by tuning the available models to the Tevatron data so it was excluded from these studies.
5
Strategy
First thing to estimate is the prediction range the models on the marked provide – and the experimentalists can tune on the data. In this respect HERWIG is rather unflexible: It has excellent
theoretical basics but very few parameters in the shower activity that are allowed to have at least some uncertainty..
Pythia is in this respect much more flexible so at least as a start a detailed study was made on how (and how much) we can ‘push around’ the Pythia showering activity.
AcerMC + Pythia with varying parameters was thus used to check on the prediction uncertainties w.r.t. the QCD (parton-)showering activity. Studies first done on generator/truth level only. In each variation typical/simple analysis cuts and procedures
were used for top mass reconstruction and the distributions were compared.
Semileptonic decay selection criteria:•pT > 40 GeV, |eta| < 2.5 for 2 b-jets and at least two light jets.•pT > 20 GeV for the lepton from W, isolation requirement ~cone(lepton, any jet)>0.4•No cuts on missing ET .•No jet energy rescaling.•W reconstruction: truth / 2 light jets with MJJ closest to MW and MJJ < 120 GeV.•The JJB1,2 combination with highest pT chosen as the top candidate.
6
Pythia ISR parameters
ATLAS uses the Pythia new pT-ordered showering and UE model!
A lot of switches: MSTP(62): level of coherence MSTP(70): regularization scheme, pT ->0
PARP(62), PARP(81), PARP(82) MSTP(72):max. pT for FSR of ISR partons PARP(61) : Λ(QCD) PARP(64) : evolution scale factor ISR master switch, ME corrections ...
7
Rregularization scheme: PARP(81)
t-tbar rel. pT # of truth-jets
Default : PARP(81)=1.9 GeV=DPARP(81)=D/2PARP(81)=2*D
8
Rregularization scheme: PARP(81)
b jet / b quark E ratio light jet / light q. E ratio
Default : PARP(81)=1.9 GeV=DPARP(81)=D/2PARP(81)=2*D
9
Rregularization scheme: PARP(81)
top mass: truth W + bjet top mass: W(jets)+bjet
Default : PARP(81)=1.9 GeV=DPARP(81)=D/2PARP(81)=2*D
10
PARP(61): Λ(QCD)
t-tbar rel. pt truth-jet number
Default : PARP(61)=0.192 GeVPARP(61)=0.1 GeVPARP(61)=0.4 GeV
11
PARP(61): Λ(QCD)
high-pt truth jet n. top mass: W(jets)+bjet
Default : PARP(61)=0.192 GeVPARP(61)=0.1 GeVPARP(61)=0.4 GeV
12
PARP(64): evolution scale factor
t-tbar rel. pt top mass: W(jets)+bjet
Default : PARP(64)=1=DPARP(64)=D/2PARP(64)=2*D
13
Pythia FSR parameters Tunable & relevant parameters for the new showering: PARJ(81): Λ(QCD) (for external processes) (D=0.25 GeV) PARP(71): scale of the hard scattering (D=4) PARJ(82): mass cut-off below which partons don’t radiate (D=1 GeV)
14
PARJ(81): Λ(QCD) Top mass: final W + b jet
AcerMC + Pythia: Parj(81) = 0.25 GeV Parj(81) = 0.14 GeV MCatNLO+Herwig
Reconstruction: True W from + truth b-jet.
MT(AcerMC) < MT(AcerMC-FSR) < MT(MC@NLO)
The FSR change in Pythia goes in the right direction!
15
PARP(71) (scale of the hard scattering) b quark pt, number of high-pt jets, pt of the jets, pt of b-
jets
16
PARP(71) top mass (final W + bjet) PARP(71) has no/little effect
17
Pythia ISR and FSR parameters
PARAMETER TOP MASS ISR low high MSTP(70): reg. scheme 0 : PARP(62) 1 : PARP(81) 2 : PARP(82) PARP(61) : Λ(QCD) PARP(64) : evol. Factor FSR PARJ(81) : Λ(QCD)
These parameters were then combined into two samples which lower/increase the reconstructed mass to obtain endpoints..
18
Systematics sample proposal AcerMC + Pythia, new showering Minimum top mass: 2*PARJ(81) (Λ(QCD) , FSR) 0.5* PARP(61) (Λ(QCD) , ISR) 2*PARP(62) (pt -> 0, kt cut-off, ISR)
Maximum top mass: 0.5*PARJ(81) (Λ(QCD) , FSR) 2* PARP(61) (Λ(QCD) , ISR) 0.5*PARP(62) (pt -> 0, kt cut-off, ISR)
19
B-fragmentation studies
20
B-fragmentation studies II
21
B-fragmentation studies III
22
B-fragmentation studies IV
The overall effect ofvarying b-fragm. Parametersgives ~stable results. However:Need to compare with other models like Herwig or EvtGen
23
Further studies/plans
I don’t have time to go through all of the things we had done but to summarize other results: The impact of QCD uncertainties on the ttbar cross-
section measurements (efficiency) seems to be small (percent order) so not crucial at the initial measurement stages. Further investigation ongoing...
Studies on the impact of PDF uncertainties is planned. Impact of other models like EvtGen on b-tagging and top
reconstruction needs to be studied. We need to develop methods on extracting the QCD
model parameters from the data and/or validate different showering models.
A lot of work...