JetEtmissJetPerformanceforHighLuminosity

Introduction

Introduction

[Mean number of pile-up jets vs mean number of interactions] The mean number of pile-up jets within |\eta| < 2.1 that pass various cuts on the reconstructed LCW-scale jet pT, versus the mean number of pile-up interactions per bunch crossing (< \mu >). A correction, dependent on the number of reconstructed primary vertices and <mu>, was applied to the jets in order to subtract the average pT offset induced by pile-up. A power law was used to extrapolate the pile-up jet multiplicity to <mu> = 150. Since these extrapolations are based on only two data points each, there is a very large uncertainty in the extrapolated pile-up jet multiplicity.

eps file gif file

[Mean number of pile-up jets vs mean number of interactions]

The mean number of pile-up jets within |\eta| < 2.1 that pass various cuts on the reconstructed LCW-scale jet pT, versus the mean number of pile-up interactions per bunch crossing (). In addition to applying the average offset correction, these jets were required to match hard-scatter track jets of pT > 5 GeV (track-jet confirmed), which rejects a large fraction of pile-up jets. A power law was used to extrapolate the pile-up jet multi plicity to = 150. Since these extrapolations are based on only two data points each, there is a very large uncertainty in the extrapolated pile-up jet multiplicity

eps file gif file

[Pt cut vs pile-up jet multiplicity]

The minimum LCW-scale pT cut versus pile-up jet multiplicity extrapolated to = 150. The data points are fit using an inverse power law. If an analysis requires fewer than 10\% of events to contain one or more pile-up jets, then a minimum pT of approximately 45 GeV would be necessary in the absence of track-jet confirmation. By using track-jet confirmation, it is possible to lower the minimum pT to approximately 25 GeV.

eps file gif file

[Jet resolution vs pt]

The jet energy resolution (sigmapT/pT) measured for anti-kt jets with R = 0.4 within |eta|<0.8, versus the true jet pT, in the EM+JES calibration. The data points are fit with the function sigmapT/pT = sqrt{N2/pT^2 + S^2/pT + C^2, where N, S and C are the noise, stochastic and constant terms in the resolution. The resolution is measured for samples with different values of , the mean number of pile-up interactions per bunch crossing. The noise term increases with , while the fitted value for S is constant within errors and C is kept fixed to its value for = 0.

eps file gif file

[Noise term vs mu]

Noise term (N) of the jet energy resolution versus the mean number of pile-up interactions per bunch crossing (). N is obtained from the fits to the jet energy resolution measured on anti-kt jets of R = 0.4 within |\eta|<0.8 in the EM+JES calibration. The value of N is reduced by applying the jet areas correction. A linear fit is used to extrapolate the value of N to <\mu> = 150, which is 14 GeV for the average offset and 8 GeV when the jet areas correction is applied.

eps file gif file

Major updates:
-- TancrediCarli - 19-Jul-2012

Responsible: TancrediCarli
Subject: public

Attachments

Topic attachments
I	Attachment	History	Action	Size	Date	Who
eps	EM4-NvsMu-Y0.eps	r1	manage	12.6 K	2012-07-19 - 22:09	TancrediCarli
png	EM4-NvsMu-Y0.png	r1	manage	16.4 K	2012-07-19 - 22:09	TancrediCarli
eps	EM4-RinMuBins-eta0.eps	r1	manage	19.4 K	2012-07-19 - 22:09	TancrediCarli
png	EM4-RinMuBins-eta0.png	r1	manage	21.9 K	2012-07-19 - 22:09	TancrediCarli
eps	meanTJCVsMu_ETA0.eps	r1	manage	16.5 K	2012-07-19 - 22:09	TancrediCarli
png	meanTJCVsMu_ETA0.png	r1	manage	19.4 K	2012-07-19 - 22:09	TancrediCarli
eps	meanVsMu_ETA0.eps	r1	manage	16.1 K	2012-07-19 - 22:09	TancrediCarli
png	meanVsMu_ETA0.png	r1	manage	19.0 K	2012-07-19 - 22:09	TancrediCarli
eps	ptMinVsMean_ETA0.eps	r1	manage	12.6 K	2012-07-19 - 22:09	TancrediCarli
png	ptMinVsMean_ETA0.png	r1	manage	18.3 K	2012-07-19 - 22:09	TancrediCarli

Topic revision: r2 - 2012-07-20 - SabrinaSacerdoti

Account
- Log In

- Cern Search
- TWiki Search
- Google Search
Atlas All webs

~~Edit~~
~~Attach~~