HEM Issue ForMETXMeeting

1
HEM Issue in bb+DM Analysis
Andrew Askew[2], Raman Khurana[2], Jyothsna Rani Komaragiri[3],

Deepak Kumar[3], Praveen Chandra Tiwari[3], Shin-Shan Yu[1],
Fasya Khuzaimah[1]
[1]National Central University, Taiwan

[2]Florida State University
[3]Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India
EXO MET+X Meeting

June 12th, 2020
2
+
Introduction
n The endcaps of the hadron calorimeter failed to cover the

phase space at -3 <η< -1.3 and -1.57 <Φ< -0.87 during the
2018 data taking period
n This issue is referred to as hadronic calorimeter endcaps

minus (HEM) issue
n This causes a significant increase in the multijet background
n The transverse momentum of the jets in this region is

typically under-measured, which results in over-measured
ETmiss
n Therefore, we must veto the jets in this region to remove fake

MET in signal region
3
+ Jet 1, MET, and Recoil Kinematics Before HEM Veto
1
CMS Internal (13 TeV)
1
1
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
Top (e ν) + 1b CR 2018 ABCD Top (e ν) + 1b CR 2018 ABCD Top (e ν) + 1b CR 2018 ABCD
2018 AB 2018 AB 2018 AB

10−1
2018 CD 2018 CD 2018 CD
10−1 10−2
10−1
10−3
10−4
10−2
10−2
10−5
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Jet1 η MET (GeV) Recoil (GeV)
1
1
1
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
2018 AB 2018 AB 2018 AB
2018 CD 2018 CD 2018 CD
10−1
10−1 10−1
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Jet1 φ MET φ Recoil φ
4
+
Effect on Main Observable
n The effect of HEM on the main observable shows a peaking

structure
n This can give rise to fake MET tails where our signal rise and
also distort the bulk
n Therefore it is necessary to do HEM veto in order to correct

this
n This is done by vetoing the events if a jet with pT > 30 GeV

passing the jet ID (and not overlapping with electron/muon/
tau) is present in the problematic region i.e. HEM 15-16
5
+
Jet 1 Eta and Jet 1 Phi
Top(enu) + 1b Top(enu) + 1b Top(enu) + 1b
h_AB_before h_CD_before h_Total_before
φ
φ
3 Entries 22168 3 Entries 36910 3 Entries 59078
140 180
50
2 2 2 160
120
40 140
1 1 1
100
120
30 80
0 0 0 100
60 80
−1 20 −1 −1
60
40
−2 −2 −2 40
Before HEM Veto
10
Before HEM Veto 20 Before HEM Veto 20
−3 0 −3 −3
0
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
η η η

h_AB_after h_CD_after h_Total_after
φ
φ
80
120
50
2 After HEM Veto 2 After HEM Veto 70 2 After HEM Veto
100
40 60
1 1 1
50 80
0 30 0 0
40 60
−1 20 −1 30 −1
40
20
−2 10 −2 −2
20
10
−3 0
−3 0 −3 0
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
η η η
2018 AB 2018 CD 2018 ABCD

6
+ Jet 1, MET, and Recoil Kinematics Before and After
HEM Veto
1
1
1
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
Top (e ν) + 1b CR 2018 ABCD (Before HEM Veto) Top (e ν) + 1b CR 2018 ABCD (Before HEM Veto) Top (e ν) + 1b CR 2018 ABCD (Before HEM Veto)
2018 ABCD (After HEM Veto) 2018 ABCD (After HEM Veto) 2018 ABCD (After HEM Veto)
2018 AB (Before HEM Veto) 2018 AB (Before HEM Veto) 2018 AB (Before HEM Veto)
2018 AB (After HEM Veto) 10−1 2018 AB (After HEM Veto) 2018 AB (After HEM Veto)
2018 CD (Before HEM Veto) 2018 CD (Before HEM Veto) 2018 CD (Before HEM Veto)
2018 CD (After HEM Veto) 2018 CD (After HEM Veto) 2018 CD (After HEM Veto)
10−1 10−2
10−1
10−3
10−4
10−2
10−2
10−5
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
1
1
1
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
2018 AB (After HEM Veto) 2018 AB (After HEM Veto) 2018 AB (After HEM Veto)
10−1
10−1 10−1
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
7
+
Effect on Data Events
n The HEM veto rejects up to 14.27% of the events, but fixes the
distributions of MET and jet phi
Top (enu) 1b Before HEM Veto After HEM Veto % Change

AB 22168 21875 1.32 %
CD 36909 31641 14.27 %
8
+
Effect on Signal
n The HEM veto effects on signal samples events :
Signal Sample Before HEM Veto After HEM Veto % change

Ma_150_MA_600 299 291 2.68 %
Ma_200_MA_600 458 449 1.97 %
Ma_250_MA_600 605 588 2.81 %
Ma_300_MA_600 800 765 4.38 %
Ma_350_MA_600 903 866 4.10 %
Ma_400_MA_600 1124 1078 4.09 %
Ma_450_MA_600 1190 1142 4.03 %
Ma_500_MA_600 1381 1333 3.48 %
9
+
Summary
n We checked the effect of HEM 15-16 power outage in data

and found it should be corrected in order to avoid fake MET
tails
n The HEM veto is applied
n We lose up to 14.27% of data for the 1b category in CR and

only 2-4.38% of signal events
n After HEM veto, distributions look similar to 2018 AB
n For the 2b category, we lose up to 9% of data events and

3-5.89% of signal events
+
Backup
10
11
+
MET and Recoil in Top (eν) + 1b
CR
1
1
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
Top (e ν) + 1b CR Top (e ν) + 1b CR
2018 AB (Before HEM Veto) 2018 AB (Before HEM Veto)
10−1
2018 AB (After HEM Veto) 2018 AB (After HEM Veto)
10−2 10−1
10−3
10−4
10−2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
MET (GeV) Recoil (GeV)
12
+
CR
1
1
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
2018 CD (Before HEM Veto) 2018 CD (Before HEM Veto)
10−1
2018 CD (After HEM Veto) 2018 CD (After HEM Veto)
10−2
10−1
10−3
10−4
10−2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
13
+
Effect on Data Events
n Effect = (nPre– nPost)/nPre
n Where
n nPre : number of events before HEM veto
n nPost : number of events after HEM veto
14
+
Delta R between Jet 1 and Electron
in Top (eν) + 1b CR Before HEM
Veto
CMS Internal (13 TeV) CMS Internal (13 TeV)
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
20000
Top (e ν) + 1b CR 2018 ABCD Top (e ν) + 1b CR 2018 ABCD
18000 2018 AB 104 2018 AB
2018 CD 2018 CD
16000
14000
103
12000
10000
8000
102
6000
4000
10
2000
0
−1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Delta R Delta R
In log scale
15
+
Delta R between Jet 1 and Electron
in Top (eν) + 2b CR Before HEM
Veto
CMS Internal (13 TeV) CMS Internal (13 TeV)
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
2200
Top (e ν) + 2b CR 2018 ABCD Top (e ν) + 2b CR 2018 ABCD
2000 2018 AB 2018 AB
2018 CD 103 2018 CD
1800
1600
1400
102
1200
1000
800
600 10
400
200
0 1
−1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Delta R Delta R
In log scale
16
+ Jet 1, MET, and Recoil Kinematics Before HEM Veto
in Top (eν) + 2b CR
1
1
1
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
2018 AB 2018 AB 2018 AB

10−1
2018 CD 2018 CD 2018 CD
−1
10
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−2
10−2
10−4
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
1
1
1
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
2018 AB 2018 AB 2018 AB
2018 CD 2018 CD 2018 CD
10−1
10−1 10−1
10−2
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
17
+
Jet 1 Eta and Jet 1 Phi in Top (eν)+2b
CR
h_AB_before h_CD_before h_Total_before
14
φ
φ
20
25
12 18
2 2 2
16
20
10
1 1 14 1
8 12 15
0 0 0
10
6
8 10
−1 −1 −1
4 6
−2 −2 4 −2 5
Before HEM Veto 2
Before HEM Veto 2
Before HEM Veto
−3 0 −3 −3
0 0
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
η η η

h_AB_after h_CD_after h_Total_after
14
φ
φ
3 Entries 2689 3 Entries 3731 3 Entries 6420 25
16
12
2
After HEM Veto 2
After HEM Veto 14 2
After HEM Veto 20
10 12
1 1 1
8 10 15
0 0 0
8
6
10
−1 −1 6 −1
4
4
−2 −2 −2 5
2
2
−3 0 −3 0 −3 0
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
η η η
2018 AB 2018 CD 2018 ABCD

18
+ Jet 1, MET, and Recoil Kinematics Before and After
HEM Veto in Top (eν) + 2b CR
1
1
1
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
2018 CD (Before HEM Veto) 10−1 2018 CD (Before HEM Veto) 2018 CD (Before HEM Veto)
10−1
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−2
10−2
10−4
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
1
1
1
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
10−1
10−1 10−1
10−2
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
19
+
Effect on Data Events in Top (eν)
+ 2b CR
n The HEM veto rejects up to 9.20% of the events in 2b
category, but fixes the distributions of MET and jet phi
Top (enu) 2b Before HEM Veto After HEM Veto % Change

AB 2797 2689 3.86 %
CD 4109 3731 9.20 %
20
+
Effect on Signal in Top (eν) + 2b
CR
n The HEM veto effects on signal samples events in 2b
category:
Signal Sample Before HEM Veto After HEM Veto % change
Ma_150_MA_600 280 267 4.64 %
Ma_200_MA_600 409 391 4.40 %
Ma_250_MA_600 552 533 3.44 %
Ma_300_MA_600 696 668 4.02 %
Ma_350_MA_600 869 841 3.22 %
Ma_400_MA_600 1048 1000 4.58 %
Ma_450_MA_600 1121 1076 4.01 %
Ma_500_MA_600 1325 1247 5.89 %
21
+
CR
1
1
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
2018 AB (Before HEM Veto) 2018 AB (Before HEM Veto)
2018 AB (After HEM Veto) 2018 AB (After HEM Veto)

10−1
10−1
10−2
10−2
10−3
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
22
+
CR
1
1
Events/Bin
Events/Bin
2018 CD (Before HEM Veto) 2018 CD (Before HEM Veto)
10−1 2018 CD (After HEM Veto) 2018 CD (After HEM Veto)
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

HEM Issue ForMETXMeeting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

HEM Issue ForMETXMeeting

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HEM Issue ForMETXMeeting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

HEM Issue in bb+DM Analysis

Andrew Askew[2], Raman Khurana[2], Jyothsna Rani Komaragiri[3],

[1]National Central University, Taiwan

EXO MET+X Meeting

n The endcaps of the hadron calorimeter failed to cover the

n This issue is referred to as hadronic calorimeter endcaps

n This causes a significant increase in the multijet background

n The transverse momentum of the jets in this region is

n Therefore, we must veto the jets in this region to remove fake

2018 AB 2018 AB 2018 AB

2018 CD 2018 CD 2018 CD

2018 AB 2018 AB 2018 AB

2018 CD 2018 CD 2018 CD

n The effect of HEM on the main observable shows a peaking

n Therefore it is necessary to do HEM veto in order to correct

n This is done by vetoing the events if a jet with pT > 30 GeV

Top(enu) + 1b Top(enu) + 1b Top(enu) + 1b

2018 AB 2018 CD 2018 ABCD

Top (enu) 1b Before HEM Veto After HEM Veto % Change

n The HEM veto effects on signal samples events :

Signal Sample Before HEM Veto After HEM Veto % change

n We checked the effect of HEM 15-16 power outage in data

n The HEM veto is applied

n We lose up to 14.27% of data for the 1b category in CR and

n After HEM veto, distributions look similar to 2018 AB

n For the 2b category, we lose up to 9% of data events and

n Effect = (nPre– nPost)/nPre

2018 AB 2018 AB 2018 AB

2018 AB 2018 AB 2018 AB

2018 CD 2018 CD 2018 CD

Top(enu) + 2b Top(enu) + 2b Top(enu) + 2b

2018 AB 2018 CD 2018 ABCD

Top (enu) 2b Before HEM Veto After HEM Veto % Change

2018 AB (After HEM Veto) 2018 AB (After HEM Veto)

10−1 2018 CD (After HEM Veto) 2018 CD (After HEM Veto)

You might also like