data-based background predictions using forward events

Data-based background predictions using forward events

Victor Pavlunin and David Stuart

University of California

Santa Barbara

July 10, 2008

2

MotivationWe are interested in signature specific model independent searches, e.g., Z+jets.

Challenge is suppressing and predicting the SM Z+jets background.

Modeling uncertainties from:

NNNLO, PDFs, detector response, jet energy scale and bugs.

Only trust Monte Carlo as far is it can be validated with data.

Validate background with a control sample that has little signal contamination.

and/or

Measure background with a control sample that has little signal contamination.

E.g., Z+0jets, Z+1jet, or Z+multijets with low jet thresholds or low Z pT.

We have been exploring a method that uses forward events as a background dominated sample to validate and measure the SM background.

3

Motivating Forward

Rapidity is flat for production of a low mass particle, e.g., of pions in Minbias

SM Z rapidity is ≈ flat since the Z is light.

By contrast, a Z produced in decays of a massive particle will be centrally peaked.

Use forward events with forward Z’s to predict the SM background in events with central Z’s.

4

Motivating Forward

Rapidity is flat for production of a low mass particle, e.g., of pions in Minbias

SM Z rapidity is ≈ flat since the Z is light.

By contrast, a Z produced in decays of a massive particle will be centrally peaked.

Use forward events with forward Z’s to predict the SM background in events with central Z’s.

After acceptance cuts the conclusion is the same.

5

MethodDefine the fraction of central events with:

RNJ = NJCentral / (NJ

Central + NJForward)

where we define central and forward splitting at |=1.3

Fit RNJ as a function of the number of jets.

Prediction high NJ central events from the number of forward events with high NJ and the fit prediction at high NJ.

6

Does it work?Check self consistency in Monte Carlo…

Predicted

Actual

7

Does it work?Check self consistency in other Monte Carlo…

Predicted

Actual

Z W

multijets

8

Does it work robustly?Check for robustness against mis-modeling. E.g.,

• Eta dependence of lepton efficiencies.• Eta dependence of jet efficiencies.• Changes in higher order Monte Carlo effects.

Expect robustness since data-based prediction:

• Measures lepton efficiencies in the low NJ bins

• Measures jet effects in events with forward Z’s.

• Measures NJ dependence in the fit.

As long as correlations between lepton and jet effects are a slowly varying function of NJ, the RNJ fit will account for it.

9

Does it work robustly?Tests with artificially introduced mis-modeling.

Z W j

Alpgen #partons Lepton inefficiencies Jet inefficiencies

Pulls are shown for two highest ET jet bins for each test.Alpgen test = even #partons only and odd #partons only.Lepton test = 30% efficiency changes globally and forward only.Jet test = 30% efficiency changes globally and forward only.

10

Missing ETIn addition to a generic Z+jets search, one could require MET.

Modeling the MET is difficult, but forward events can measure it.

We test this with artificially introduced jet mis-measurements:

• Introduce holes in jet acceptance.

• Smear jet energy according to a pdf.

11

Missing ET robustnessWe expect robustness with MET because the method measures the effect of MET with forward events. That measurement is invalid only if there is a correlation between the Z and the MET, which is less true at large NJ.

Z W j

Alpgen #partons Jet holes Jet resolution tails

12

SensitivityNot focused on sensitivity to any specific model

(more focused on insensitivity to any mis-modeling).

But, using LM4 as a benchmark:

L = 1 fb-1

Predicted w/o signal

Predicted w/ signal

Actual w/ signal

Without MET cut.

13

SensitivityNot focused on sensitivity to any specific model

(more focused on insensitivity to any mis-modeling).

But, using LM4 as a benchmark:

L = 1 fb-1

Predicted w/o signal

Predicted w/ signal

Actual w/ signal

Without MET cut.

MET is not powerful at high NJ, as expected. But prediction remains valid.

With MET cut.

14

SensitivityNot focused on sensitivity to any specific model

(more focused on insensitivity to any mis-modeling).

But, using LM4 as a benchmark:

L = 1 fb-1

Predicted w/o signal

Predicted w/ signal

Actual w/ signal

Without MET cut.

Note that signal contribution would bias the RNJ fit for NJ>3.

The forward events remain signal free, but central events are “contaminated”.

With MET cut.

15

W+jetsAs shown already, this approach can also be used for predicting the W+jets background.

W

Predicted

Actual

16

W+jetsAs shown already, this approach can also be used for predicting the W+jets background.

W

Predicted

ActualPredicted

Actual

But, the ttbar contribution is dominantly central, because top is heavy and produced mostly at rest.

This biases the prediction if we use NJ>2, for the same reason that SUSY biased Z+jets for NJ>3.

Since top and Mtop are large, it is a significant central background.

top

17

W+jetsAs shown already, this approach can also be used for predicting the W+jets background.

Fitting with NJ<3 gives a prediction for the W+jets background to a top signal.

This is a SM sample to validate the effectiveness of the method in the presence of a signal.(See, e.g., a related CDF measurement in Phys.Rev.D76:072006,2007).

Predicting W+jets and ttbar together is more complicated because ttbar is heavy. Another talk…

18

RNJThe central fraction, RNJ, is potentially of general interest.

E.g., min bias is 1/2because flat in .

Here, “NJ” uses tracksabove 3 GeV as jet proxies.

The highest pT track is therapidity tag.

Minbias

19

RNJThe central fraction, RNJ, is potentially of general interest.

W, Z, , QCD are lightand so similar to MinBias.

20

RNJThe central fraction, RNJ, is potentially of general interest.

W, Z, , QCD are lightand so similar to MinBias.

Top and SUSY are heavyand central.

21

RNJ(-1)

Finally, we have explored another variable that tries to take advantage of the general expectation that the NJ spectrum should be falling.

L = 1 fb-1

Predicted w/o signal

Predicted w/ signal

Actual w/ signal

Without MET cut.

Clear signal when there is an increase with NJ, or even a decrease in the slope.

RNJ(-1) = NJ

Central / (NJCentral + NJ-1

Forward)

22

RNJ(-1)

Finally, we have explored another variable that tries to take advantage of the general expectation that the NJ spectrum should be falling.

Z+jetsZ+jets plus LM4

≈ S

23

RNJ(-2)

Can “upgrade” that to use the forward events from two jet bins previous.

Z+jetsZ+jets plus LM4

≈ S2

24

Summary

We have explored a data-based background prediction that:

• Attempts to avoid generator and detector modeling uncertainties by measuring a ratio.

• Takes advantage of the fact that the SM is light at the LHC, so it is ≈ uniform in rapidity.

• Consistency checks find that it fails to discover anything

that it shouldn’t, even when reality bites.

• Find that the central fraction could be generally useful in understanding signals.