EdgeFinderA proof-of-concept for unbiased kinematic edge measurements
in heavily polluted samples
David Curtinbla
arXiv:1112.1095, PRD
MC4BSM WorkshopCornell University, Ithaca, NY
March 23, 2012
Problem:
You have some kinematic distribution (Mjj , MT2, . . . )
→
Don’t know the global shape, but you want to measure theposition of the edge/endpoint because it gives you someinformation about the masses in the decay chain.
How do you measure this edge?
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 1 / 25
Old SolutionConstruct a fit function (commonly a linear kink, maybe withdetector-motivated smearing, or something else depending on theshape of your edge) and fit to find the edge:
This has a lot of problems:- The fit function is only an approximation to the shape of some subset of the
distribution near the edge feature. Which subset? Where to fit? How good anapproximation?
- This systematic error will not be included in the statistical uncertainty of the fit
- Do you introduce bias by picking a fit-domain?
- Dreaming up more clever fit functions won’t solve this problem. Edgesare difficult and ill-defined features.
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 2 / 25
Why Care?1 Edge Measurements are difficult but important.
New kinematic variables like MT2 are extremely powerful and we wouldlike to use them to perform mass measurements at the LHC.
Unfortunately they are very fragile to contamination and wash-out,making their endpoints/edges difficult to measure.
Need a reliable way to extract low-quality edges that accurately includesthe uncertainty in their position.
2 Edge Measurements are not just difficult but deceiving!Fake measurements can arise from combinatorics, cut artifacts,background, low statistics . . . . Worst-Case Scenartio!
You can deal with the false-positive problem by using two ‘orthogonal’ways of cleaning up your distribution, measuring all the edges and onlykeeping those where both methods agree. (Examples later.)
This requires a way of extracting all the edges from a distribution withoutbias, stressing accurate uncertainties (otherwise we have no concept oftwo edge measurements ’agreeing’ with each other).
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 3 / 25
New Solution
ObjectiveFind all the edges in a distribution, find their uncertainties, includesystematic errors, do it automatically (no bias), and use as much oras little information about the shape of the edge as we want.
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 4 / 25
EdgeFinder
Non-Deterministic Edge Measurement
Idea: a ‘Monte-Carlo’ based approach.Come up with a fit function that includes as much or as little info as you’d like(linear kink, linear kink + smearing, . . . )
Generate a lot of random fit domains over your data (no bias)
Fit your function over each fit domain. Each fit returns a possible edge position.(Could weigh it with a goodness-of-fit test. )
→ Build up a distribution of found edges.
True edges show up as peaks. You’ve just turned edge measurement intobump hunting.
Finds all the edges without bias.
Width of peaks give uncertainties that includes just about all possible sources.Self-measuring measurement resolution!
This Edge-to-Bump Method obviously needs more exploration &verification, but let’s see how it works in a simple proof-of-concept.
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 5 / 25
Edge-to-Bump MethodStep-by-Step:
1. Fit a simple kink function (no smearing) 1000’s of times torandom subdomains of data (without domain length or positionbias).
−→ Obtain KinkDistribution
2. Detect Peaks in Kink Distribution→ Edge Detection.
−→Scan over peak widthw looking for 3σ ex-cesses in central vsside bins
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 6 / 25
Edge-to-Bump Method
3. Turn these found peaks into edge measurements by taking themean & standard deviation of the edge distribution around thepeak:
→
(The absence of an edge is signaled by the absence of clearpeaks in the kink-distribution. Works very reliably.)
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 7 / 25
Example
100 200 300 400 500 600Mbb
200
400
600
800
1000ð�10 GeV
Mbb Distribution
Expected Edge at 382.3 GeV
100 200 300 400 500 600Mbb
200
400
600
800
1000
ð�10 GeVKink Distribution: unfiltered HlightL and filtered HdarkL
8000 ® 3526 Kinks
Filter Parameters:Lmin = 100 GeVNmin = 500
100 200 300 400 500 600Mbb0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70w
Detected Peak Ranges
100 200 300 400 500 600Mbb0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70w
Confidence Level Intervals of Edge Measurements
Edge Measurement:391.9 ± 10.3 GeV
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 8 / 25
Possible Extensions
Main Idea: analyze a distribution of fits rather than a single fit.
One could imagine much more sophisticated ways of analyzingthe distribution of fits, can almost treat them like “events”
100 200 300 400 500 600Mbb
200
400
600
800
1000
ð�10 GeVKink Distribution: unfiltered HlightL and filtered HdarkL
8000 ® 3526 Kinks
Filter Parameters:Lmin = 100 GeVNmin = 500 −→
→ Could also include a statistical weight for each found edge.
The method is completely general: to detect different kinds offeatures just use different fit functions.
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 9 / 25
EdgeFinder
Publicly available Mathematica implementation of theEdge-to-Bump method:http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~curtin/edgefinder/
Simple proof-of-concept: many refinements & optimizationspossible.
We demonstrate its utility in a few collider studies (includingblind verification) by measuring all the masses in a fullyhadronic 2-step symmetric decay chain with maximalcombinatorial ambiguity:
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 10 / 25
Practical Demonstration
Use MT 2 endpoints to measure all the masses in
Combinatorial worst-case!
But let’s introduce MT 2 first. . .
Some useful MT2 references:
Barr, Lester, Stephens ’03 [hep-ph/0304226] (old-skool MT2 review)
Cho, Choi, Kim, Park ’07 [0711.4526] (analytical expressions for MT2
event-by-event without ISR, MT2-edges)
Burns, Kong, Matchev, Park ’08 [0810.5576] (definition of MT2-subsystemvariables, analytical expressions for endpoints & kinks w. & w.o. ISR)
Konar, Kong, Matchev, Park ’09 [0910.3679] (Definition of MT2⊥ to project outISR-dependence)
(More in the paper.)
Classical MT 2 Variable
MT2(~pTt1, ~p
Tt2, m̃N) =
min~qT
1 +~qT2 =
~/pT
{max
[mT
(~pT
t1, ~qTt , m̃N
),mT
(~pT
t1, ~qTt , m̃N
)]}
p
p
t
t
N
N
X
X
chain 1
chain 2
If pTN1, pT
N2 were known, thiswould give us a lower bound on mX
However, we only know total ~/pT
⇒ minimize wrt all possible splittings,get ‘worst’ but not ‘incorrect’ lowerbound on mX .We don’t even know the invisiblemass mN ! Insert a testmass m̃N .
For the correct testmass, MmaxT 2 = mX ⇒ Effectively get mX(mN).
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 11 / 25
Multi-Step: MT 2-Subsystem Variables
Complete Mass Determination Possible for 2+ Step Decay Chain.
Measure 3 masses. Available variables:
Mbb,
M221T 2 , M210
T 2 , M220T2
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 12 / 25
MT2 combinatorics are awful. . .
250 300 350 400 450MT20
50
100
150
200
250
300ð�10 GeV
Correct Assignment
250 300 350 400 450MT20
50
100
150
200
250
300ð�10 GeV
One Up + Other Down ® Downstream
250 300 350 400 450MT20
50
100
150
200
250
300ð�10 GeV
One Up + Other Down ® Downstream
250 300 350 400 450MT20
50
100
150
200
250
300ð�10 GeV
Upstream ® Downstream
250 300 350 400 450MT20
50
100
150
200
250
300ð�10 GeV
Same Chain ® Downstream
250 300 350 400 450MT20
50
100
150
200
250
300ð�10 GeV
Same Chain ® Downstream
MT2 Combinatorics Problem
MT 2 is ‘powerful but fragile’, much more problematic than Mjj :
There are more wrong-sign combinations.
Edges are shallow→ less well defined, more easily washed out(ISR, detector effects, background).
The combinatorics background has nontrivial structure→ Fake Edges!
No one method of reducing combinatorics background worksreliably all of the time.
=⇒ Combinatorics Background doesn’t just reduce quality of edgemeasurement, it can invalidate measurement completely.Have to reject fakes!
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 13 / 25
Golden Rule for MT 2 Measurements
Always use more than one method to reducecombinatorics background.
Only accept endpoint measurement if they agree
For each MT2 variable we perform the following steps:
1 Apply two CB reduction methods→ two MT2 distributions.
2 Apply Edge-to-Bump to each→ two kink distributions.3 Good quality edges in both distributions that agree?
YES: merge & accept measurement(can increase error bars)
NO: discard variable.(e.g. disagreeing edges, no edge in one distribution, . . . )
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 14 / 25
Combinatorics Background: DL Method
If we’re going to analyze multi-step decay chains we need to get ahandle on combinatorics background.
Simplest thing you could do: drop largest few MT2’s per event.
For each event, the true MT2 is a lower bound for MmaxT 2 .
If there are several MT2-possibilities per event, the largest one(s)are more likely to be wrong.
→ Discard Them!
Works surprisingly well, some of the time.
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 15 / 25
Combinatorics Background: KE Method
What else could we do?
Edge in Mbb-distribution (invariant mass of decay chain) is relativelyeasy to measure using Edge-to-Bump, combinatorics are benign.
−→
100 200 300 400 500 600Mbb
200
400
600
800
1000ð�10 GeV
Mbb Distribution
Expected Edge at 382.3 GeV
Could we make use of this Mmaxbb information?
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 16 / 25
Combinatorics Background: KE Method
Known Mmaxbb
⇒ deduce correct decay chain assignment for 15− 30% of events.
100% purity! (Before mismeasurement & detector effects)
Extremely simple & high-yield method for determining decaychain assignment.
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 17 / 25
CB Reduction Example
M220T 2 (Eb):
7300 7400 7500 7600 7700MT2
20
40
60
80
100
120
ð�H5 GeVLWithout Combinatorics Background Reduction
Expected Edgeat 7393.1 GeV
7300 7400 7500 7600 7700MT20
10
20
30
40
50
ð�H5 GeVLCombinatorics Background reduced using KE Method
M221T 2 (0):
100 150 200 250 300 350 400MT2
50
100
150
ð�H5 GeVLWithout Combinatorics Background Reduction
Expected Edgeat 303.5 GeV
100 150 200 250 300 350 400MT2
50
100
150
ð�H5 GeVLCombinatorics Background reduced using DL Method
No one method works reliably all of the time. Sometimes theyfail, sometimes they produce fake edges.
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 18 / 25
Now we’re finally ready for . . .
Monte Carlo Studies
First Monte Carlo StudyApply our methods to a fully hadronic combinatorics-worst-casescenario without other backgrounds.
Measure 3 masses. Available variables:
Mbb,
M221T2 , M210
T2 , M220T2
(use both ISR-binned & ⊥ versions, for zero and large testmass).
Choose a particular MSSM Benchmark Point w/o SUSY-BG.
mt1 mt2 st mb1 mb2 sb mg̃ mχ̃01
371 800 -0.095 341 1000 -0.011 525 98
(Already excluded byLHC, but that doesn’tmatter for us.)
σg̃g̃ ≈ 11.6 pb @√
s = 14 TeV. Use L = 100 fb−1 (pessimistic).
Simulate with MadGraph/MadEvent, Pythia, PDG.
Require 4 b-tags & MET > 200 GeV→ 58k Signal Events, Eliminates SM BG.
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 19 / 25
Full MT 2 Measurement Example
200 300 400 5000
200
400
600
800
1000ð�H10 GeVL
With Full Combinatorics BackgroundH22356 data pointsL
← M210T 2 (0)
200 300 400 5000
20
40
60
80
100
120
ð�H10 GeVLKE Method H2724 data pointsL
100 200 300 400 5000
100
200
300
400
ð�H10 GeVLEdge Distribution HKE MethodL
100 200 300 400 5000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70w
Peak Ranges HKEL
100 200 300 400 5000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70w
Edge Measurements HKEL
200 300 400 5000
200
400
600
ð�H10 GeVLDL Method H14904 data pointsL
100 200 300 400 5000
100
200
300
400
ð�H10 GeVLEdge Distribution HDL MethodL
100 200 300 400 5000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70w
Peak Ranges HDLL
100 200 300 400 5000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70w
Edge Measurements HDLL
Measurement:327± 8.7 GeV[320.9]
100 200 300 400 5000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70w
Overlapping Edge Measurements
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 20 / 25
Edge MeasurementsVariable Prediction Measurement Deviation/σ QualityMbb 382.3 391.8± 10.3 +0.93 —M221
T2⊥(0) 303.5 240± 140 −0.45 CM221
T2 (0) 301± 47 −0.05 AM221
T2⊥(Eb) 7153.4 7154± 42 +0.01 AM221
T2 (Eb) 7171± 42 +0.42 AM210
T2⊥(0) 320.9 283± 44 −0.86 AM210
T2 (0) 327.2± 8.7 +0.72 AM210
T2⊥(Eb) 7239.8 7141± 54 −1.84 AM210
T2 (Eb) 7176± 37 −1.75 AM220
T2⊥(0) 506.7 509± 211 +0.01 CM220
T2 (0) 528± 56 +0.38 BM220
T2⊥(Eb) 7393.1 7484± 106 +0.86 BM220
T2 (Eb) 7456± 70 +0.90 BM210
T2⊥all(0) 312.8 249± 52 −1.23 BM210
T2⊥all(Eb) 7158.2 7129± 40 −0.73 A
NO FALSE MEASUREMENTS!
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 21 / 25
Mass Measurements
500 600 700 800 900 1000mg�0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
Projection of Gaussian Density onto mg� axis.
300 400 500 600 700m
b�
10.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
Projection of Gaussian Density onto mb�
1axis.
100 200 300 400 500 600mΧ
�0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
Projection of Gaussian Density onto m� axis.
mmeasg̃ = 592± 69 (525) mmeas
b̃1= 393± 57 (341) mmeas
χ̃01
= 210± 92 (98)
Gluino and sbottom masses measured with ∼ 10% precision!
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 22 / 25
Blind StudyWant to verify our methods with a different spectrum:
mt̃1mt̃2
sin θt̃ mb̃1mb̃2
sin θb̃ mg̃ mχ̃01
1016 1029 0.76 404 1012 1 703 84
Somewhat more luminosity to get same number of events.Analysis otherwise identical to first study.
Did not know the spectrum prior to completing analysis!
Worked equally well:
700 800 900 1000 1100mg�0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
Projection of Gaussian Density onto mg� axis.
400 450 500 550 600 650 700m
b�
10.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
Projection of Gaussian Density onto mb�
1axis.
100 200 300 400 500 600mΧ
�0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
Projection of Gaussian Density onto m� axis.
mmeasg̃ = 746± 57 (703) mmeas
b̃1= 449± 44 (403) mmeas
χ̃01
= 155± 92 (84)
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 23 / 25
Conclusion
Conclusion
Edge-to-Bump Method: MC-based edge detection andmeasurement that addresses most of the edge-measurementsproblems that were prohibitive to LHC application (bias,systematic error, self-determined sensible uncertainties).
The EdgeFinder Mathematica package is a publicly availableproof-of-concept of the Edge-to-Bump method. Demonstratedutility, but obviously much room for extension & optimization.
We showed for the first time that MT 2 can be used to determineall the masses in a fully hadronic 2-step symmetric decay chainwith maximal combinatorial ambiguity.
- KE-method of deducing decay chain assignment: extremelysimple & high-yield.
- Application to MT2: Simultaneous use of 2+ methods of reducingcombinatorics background allows for rejection of fake edges &artifacts.
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 24 / 25
Conclusion
UPDATE:
These methods might find their way into an upcoming CMSanalysis.
So stay tuned :).
Stony Brook University David Curtin EdgeFinder 25 / 25