hwg 080206 fang

H→gg : Validation of CSC samples : 

Y.Fang, B.Mellado, Sau lan Wu University of Wisconsin H→gg : Validation of CSC samples

Outline: 

Outline Samples descriptions CSC / DC2 comparison 1( Athena-Atlfast, gg,qg→gg) Kinematic variables comparison. CSC / Rome comparison 2 ( Full Sim, Signal) Kinematic variables Calibration comparison Conclusions

Samples description : 

Samples description CSC samples gg,qg→gg Pythia 4K (Athena-atlfast) H→gg (gg Fusion) MC@NLO 4K ( Fullsim 11.0.4 ,CBNT) DC2/Rome samples gg,qg→gg Pythia 5K (Athena-atlfast) DC2 H→gg ( gg Fusion) MC@NLO 28K (Fullsim Sim/Recon:9.0.4/10.0.1, CBNT) MH = 120 GeV

CSC/DC2: PTg1, PTg2 : 

CSC/DC2: PTg1, PTg2 background: gg,gq→gg

CSC/DC2: g1, g2: 

CSC/DC2: g1, g2  of leading photon  of sub-leading photon background: gg,gq→gg

CSC/DC2: PTj1, PTj2: 

CSC/DC2: PTj1, PTj2 PT of leading Jet PT of sub-leading Jet background: gg,gq→gg

CSC/DC2: j1, j2: 

CSC/DC2: j1, j2  of leading Jet  of sub-leading Jet background: gg,gq→gg

CSC/DC2: PTgg,Mggj: 

CSC/DC2: PTgg,Mggj background: gg,gq→gg

CSC/DC2: Mgg: 

CSC/DC2: Mgg With With same amount of events background: gg,gq→gg

CSC/Rome(Full Sim) : PTg1, PTg2 : 

CSC/Rome(Full Sim) : PTg1, PTg2 Signal: gg→H→gg (MC@NLO)

CSC/Rome(Full Sim): g1, g2: 

CSC/Rome(Full Sim): g1, g2 A dip found in g’sη distribution . Signal: gg→H→gg (MC@NLO)

CSC/Rome(Full Sim): PTgg: 

CSC/Rome(Full Sim): PTgg Signal: gg→H→gg (MC@NLO)

CSC/Rome (Full Sim): Mgg : 

CSC/Rome (Full Sim): Mgg CSC: 11.0.4 H+0jet cuts applied beforehand Rome CSC: mean = 112.0 ± 0.1 GeV Rome: mean = 112.6 ± 0.02 GeV s = 2.366 ± 0.112GeV s = 2.223 ± 0.024 GeV

CSC/Rome (Full Sim): Mgg after calibration with longitudinal weights for Rome (fixed window): 

CSC/Rome (Full Sim): Mgg after calibration with longitudinal weights for Rome (fixed window) CSC: 11.0.4 H+0jet cuts applied beforehand, photon ID not applied, vertex correction applied. Rome CSC: mean = 119.5 ± 0. 1GeV Rome: mean = 119.9 ± 0. 01GeV s = 1.213 ± 0.067 GeV s = 1.289 ± 0.013 GeV

Conclusion: 

Conclusion CSC gg,gq→gg kinematic variables are mostly consistent with those of DC2. For CSC(11.0.4) signal gg→H→gg: the dip in η of photon distribution needs to be understood and solved. Needs to redo calibration constants for CSC samples.

backup: 

backup

CSC/Rome(Full Sim): Conversion rate of Photon: 

CSC/Rome(Full Sim): Conversion rate of Photon CSC sample has high photon conversion rate with respect to Rome’s. Need detail study. New layout has additional pixel layer.