Difference: PaperReadingWjets (5 vs. 6)
Revision 62011-10-21 - JamesFerrando
| Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The draft document may be found at this URL: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1390459 | ||||||||
| Line: 41 to 41 | ||||||||
|
121 The jet pt here at 30 is confusing as the 20 is also used. Since both analyses are done (pt20 and pt30) it makes sense to parallelize them and treat them equally, especially in light of the sherpa discrepancy in 20. Also, as we go on to do the QCD, it would be good to have those plots for the 20 GeV Cut as well. Also, this is "observed" so perhaps an indication of this rather than just jet pt is useful. Or dont we correct jets in other papers? | ||||||||
| Added: | ||||||||
| > > | By that token, shouldn't we indicate that every variable is "observed"?
We believe that the corrections on the jet energy mean that the measured pt corresponds well to the true pT. So I'd leave that as is.
On appendix A. I don't really see why it is included at all. If it causes confusion I would suggest to drop it rather than raise it in status to the level of a parallel analysis. If they wish to leave the appendix in, maybe they should say a bit more in lines 885-887 about why it's interesting to see the pt20 results as well as well as the pt30 ones.
| |||||||
| 139 The use of online and on-line is not consistent. It is also imprecise to say online - it should be defined in terms of the algorithms and corrections in the introduction. Similarly for offline. Saying selected "online" is just saying triggered? IV SIMULATED EVENT SAMPLES | ||||||||
| Line: 61 to 69 | ||||||||
Fig 2: data points that are zero should not be shown.
B. Missing Tranverse Energy and %$ M_T $% | ||||||||
| Changed: | ||||||||
| < < | line 300: if the reader looks at reference [39] they will find extensive discussion of calcualtion and performance for "missing transverse momentum", not "missing transverse energy" | |||||||
| > > | line 300: if the reader looks at reference [39] they will find extensive discussion of calculation and performance for "missing transverse momentum", not "missing transverse energy" | |||||||
line 301: use \mbox to prevent wrap-around of the %$ M_T $% formula
C. Wenu | ||||||||
| Changed: | ||||||||
| < < | 366 How bad is the reliability of the simulation of a lepton as a jet. Or do we just expect this? 372-381 Confusing as to what is actually changed. Perhaps the cuts should just be given in a table. Fig 4: This one has a supressed zero but Fig 2 does not. The qcd distributions are not smooth and should either be smoothed (interpolate with sys on interpolation) or discarded with some upper limit for sys. | |||||||
| > > | 366 How bad is the reliability of the simulation of a lepton as a jet. Or do we just expect this? reliability of simulation of an electron as a jet is very good. You just need to get the calorimeter total energy response right (more or less). For jets faking electrons the reliability is much worse because the simualtion has to get fine details of the ahdronic shower correct (e.g. every variable that we cut on in the electron finder) 372-381 Confusing as to what is actually changed. Perhaps the cuts should just be given in a table. Fig 4: This one has a supressed zero but Fig 2 does not. The qcd distributions are not smooth and should either be smoothed (interpolate with sys on interpolation) or discarded with some upper limit for sys. | |||||||
D. WmunuFig 5: Also ratty qcd: >=5j with 80 GeV mt is artificial. >=3 is quiteratty. 441 Does the cut at 10mm cut out a lot of lumi ?Does this compare to the beam spot cut of 60mm? 490 The background events with a muon and an energetic jet dont survive? To what degree and what happens when we have 2fb? | ||||||||
| Line: 92 to 106 | ||||||||
Appendix AShould show us the QCD templates again as well. They hadsome odd features statistically that misled us to interpret some of the extremes of distributions. | ||||||||
| Added: | ||||||||
| > > | line 1119: "cross sections to be more" -> "cross sections more" | |||||||
Referencesreference [18] is not the appropriate one for single top production with MC@NLO - you should use, in addition: | ||||||||
| Line: 103 to 119 | ||||||||
S. Frixione, E. Laenen, P. Motylinski, B.R. Webber, C.D. White, Single-top hadroproduction in association with a W boson. J. High Energy Phys. 07, 029 (2008)
COMMENTS Relevant to Glasgow but not for authors | ||||||||
| Changed: | ||||||||
| < < | 134 What jet pt do we use in ttH, WH and ttbar? Is the 20 and 30 relevant? They dont correct back to parton but "unfold". How does that impact us? 228 Beam spot is 60mm in Z and resolution in Z is 0.1mm 238 When we do the R stuff, will we have to recalibrate it all? 247 Note use of y not eta 312 How well matched to the MET and Mt cuts are we? 313 and on : We should think about Soft lepton tags 371 Is the definition of fake e different here and in top or what we do? What they did is not clear but they do relax E/p and overall do a isolation relaxation. 371 Note that they get shapes from the data and then fit met. 480 For fake mu they use the impact parameter. 499-504 They make a pythia dijet sample to look for a muon. Has any work been done in atlas to try to identify b,c,light in jets? 505 Note the difference in the QCD for mu and e. We should make sure we keep them separate as they clearly had stuff leaking into distributions and that was really an artefact of the stats for the estimates. Hence e and mu are different in pots in fig 6/7 561 By the time we use 1fb or 2fb the consitency of the kinematic distributions may be a new issue. 500-600 How does the QCD estimate here compare to the top algorithm for QCD estimates. Fig 7 and onwards are untagged - this is useful but we will need to see flavor tagged as well. 584 Final state QED differs for e and mu so again we need to do separately 599 What do they do really ? how does it compare to what we need? 637 Uncertainties for where we start on ttH are HUGE: 30% compared to 2% for 0 jet. Also for ttbar? But we know ttbar. 652 Interesting to see the quark/gluon difference in calorimeter response. D0 claims that CDF's 2j bump in w+j is due to this being done incorrectly 670 Note that the full analysis is repeated for the systematics. We need to make a to-do list for the systematics from this section and see if it agrees with what we have for our current todo list -- if we have one. | |||||||
| > > | 134 What jet pt do we use in ttH, WH and ttbar? Is the 20 and 30 relevant?
They dont correct back to parton but "unfold". How does that impact us?
in tt+jets we will use a similar unfolding approach to this analysis (we use pt >25 jets)
228 Beam spot is 60mm in Z and resolution in Z is 0.1mm 238 When we do the R stuff, will we have to recalibrate it all? 247 Note use of y not eta 312 How well matched to the MET and Mt cuts are we? 313 and on : We should think about Soft lepton tags 371 Is the definition of fake e different here and in top or what we do? What they did is not clear but they do relax E/p and overall do a isolation relaxation. 371 Note that they get shapes from the data and then fit met. 480 For fake mu they use the impact parameter. 499-504 They make a pythia dijet sample to look for a muon. Has any work been done in atlas to try to identify b,c,light in jets? 505 Note the difference in the QCD for mu and e. We should make sure we keep them separate as they clearly had stuff leaking into distributions and that was really an artefact of the stats for the estimates. Hence e and mu are different in pots in fig 6/7 561 By the time we use 1fb or 2fb the consitency of the kinematic distributions may be a new issue. 500-600 How does the QCD estimate here compare to the top algorithm for QCD estimates. Fig 7 and onwards are untagged - this is useful but we will need to see flavor tagged as well. 584 Final state QED differs for e and mu so again we need to do separately 599 What do they do really ? how does it compare to what we need? 637 Uncertainties for where we start on ttH are HUGE: 30% compared to 2% for 0 jet. Also for ttbar? But we know ttbar. 652 Interesting to see the quark/gluon difference in calorimeter response. D0 claims that CDF's 2j bump in w+j is due to this being done incorrectly 670 Note that the full analysis is repeated for the systematics. We need to make a to-do list for the systematics from this section and see if it agrees with what we have for our current todo list -- if we have one. | |||||||
| -- SarahAllwood - 2011-10-19 \ No newline at end of file | ||||||||
View topic | History: r11 < r10 < r9 < r8 | More topic actions...
Copyright © 2008-2025 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback