<!-- Title: 17:36:28  Fri Jan 16 2004 -->
<!-- Crewchief: Aaron Dominguez -->
<!-- Op1: Lauren Tompkins -->
<!-- Op2: Pete McNamara -->
<!-- Op3: Kevin Burkett -->
<!-- Op4: Jared Yamaoka -->
<!-- Op5: Steve Worm -->
<!-- Op6: &nbsp; -->
<!-- Notes: -->
<pre>4b MSSM Higgs search in early 2004</pre>


<!-- Date: Wed Jan 21 14:02:45 2004 -->
<h2>E-Mail from Claudio about using ALPGEN for bbcc and cccc</h2> 
<pre> 
Subject:  
         Re: bbbb, bbcc and cccc ALPGEN 
       Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:39:02 -0600 
       From: Claudio Ferretti <claudiof@fnal.gov> 
         To: DADominguez@lbl.gov 
 
  Hi Aaron, 
 
I made a quick check on the code, and it is a real mess for me 
(I'm not an Alpgen's author) to implement processes not yet in 
the code (especially the ones involving the heavy flavor where 
you need to check more things). 
I'll ask Michelangelo if he has/is working on a version whre you 
can produce charm too. Even it's not the best way to work, you can 
always use the very inefficient way to generate bb+2jets requiring 
that both of them are charm. In that case you cannot leave the 
charms free since they are generated massless. 
 
                Cheers,                 Claudio 
</pre>
<!-- Author: Aaron -->


<!-- Date: Wed Jan 21 15:33:47 2004 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Wed_Jan_21_2004_153315.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-64  align='top'></a></td><td>A copy of my higgs WG presentation.</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared -->


<!-- Date: Thu Jan 22 15:43:36 2004 -->
<h2>Followup on Claudio's mail on bbcc and bbbb with ALPGEN</h2> 
<pre> 
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:26:22 -0600 
From: Claudio Ferretti <claudiof@fnal.gov> 
Subject: Re: bbbb, bbcc and cccc ALPGEN 
To: DADominguez@lbl.gov 
 
 
OK, after a couple of days of work, I have been able to modify alpgen 
to generate both c-cbar+c-cbar and (much harder) BBbar+CCbar. 
For the second process the efficiency is not very good and it will 
take while to generate events. 
 
> Our L1 trigger requires single-tower 10, and SumEt>90GeV, so the Pt cut 
> of 25 GeV is a little close to the limit, but ok. 
I can change, of course, thise cuts for your samples, just let me know. 
 
		Cheers,			Claudio 
</pre>
<!-- Author: Aaron -->


<!-- Date: Mon Jan 26 21:07:37 2004 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Mon_Jan_26_2004_210726.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-68  align='top'></a></td><td>Number of b's per event with eta less than 2.5 (After L3)  </td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared -->


<!-- Date: Mon Jan 26 21:09:50 2004 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Mon_Jan_26_2004_210947.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-70  align='top'></a></td><td>Eta after L3.  (Started with 40k events)</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Mon Jan 26 21;12;16 comment by...Jared -->
<pre>It doesn't appear that an eta cut of 2 b's &lt; 2.5 will help our efficiency.

</pre>


<!-- Date: Mon Jan 26 21:40:44 2004 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Mon_Jan_26_2004_214028.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-74  align='top'></a></td><td>This is a more useful plot.  This is number of b's per event with eta < 2.5 before any cuts.  Adding a requirment of 2 b's with eta < 2.5 only changes things by ~1%.</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared -->


<!-- Date: Mon Jan 26 21:41:27 2004 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Mon_Jan_26_2004_214124.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-76  align='top'></a></td><td>Eta of the 4b's before any cuts.</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared -->


<!-- Date: Wed Feb 4 14:09:40 2004 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Wed_Feb__4_2004_140901.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-78  align='top'></a></td><td>Validation plots of phi and d0vsPhi for the 90 GeV Grappa signal.  </td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Lauren -->
<!-- Comment: Wed Feb 11 11;01;36 comment by...Aaron -->
<pre>This shows the problem of the wrong tcl command for the beamline.  Notice the horrible structure in the phi of tagged jets.</pre>
<!-- Date: Tue Feb 10 15:55:01 2004 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Tue_Feb_10_2004_155426.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-80  align='top'></a></td><td>Validation Plots of QCD->4b bg (GR@PPA)</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Wed Feb 11 11;02;34 comment by...Aaron -->
<pre>This shows how using the consistent beamline for generation, reconstruction and ntuplizing makes a much nicer phi distribution of the tagged jets</pre>


<!-- Date: Wed Feb 11 11:36:33 2004 -->
<h2>Explaination of fubar MC</h2> 
We were seeing very low b-tag efficiencies in all of our MC samples.  There was a very bad structure in the phi of the tagged jets, with a big hole between 0 and 2 radians.  With the help of Sal Rappoccio, this was tracked down to an inconsistent use of beamlines coming from different USED_SETS for generation, simulation, reconstruction and ntuplizing.<p> 
For the record, here are the USED_SETS that were used: 
<ul> 
<li> Generation and simulation: PAD_PHYISCS_CDF Pass 09 
<li> ProductionExe: PROD_PHYSICS_CDF Pass 08 
<li> stnmaker_prod: SIM_PHYSICS_CDF 
</ul> 
This caused the beamline to be in a different place each time.  Not good.  Now we use <b>PAD_PHYSICS_CDF PASS 09</b> everywhere.
<!-- Author: Aaron -->


<!-- Date: Wed Feb 11 11:56:44 2004 -->
<center><a href='/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Wed_Feb_11_2004_115241.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-82' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Wed_Feb_11_2004_115600.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-84' ></a></center>
<!-- Author: Aaron -->
<!-- Comment: Wed Feb 11 11;57;52 comment by...Aaron -->
<pre>First plot shows dijet inv mass (uncorrected) for all combos of fake tags, observed and predicted. These histograms have not been corrected for overcounting. Second plot shows the inv mass of double positive tagged events in data, bb2p15 MC, and inclusive top MC, along with fakes from previous plots after subtraction of N+- - N-- and correction for overcounting. The bb2p area is equal to the data minus the sum of the top and fake backgrounds.</pre>


<!-- Date: Wed Feb 11 13:59:05 2004 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Wed_Feb_11_2004_135820.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-86  align='top'></a></td><td>Validation Plots Pythia Signal (90 GeV)</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared -->


<!-- Date: Wed Mar 17 13:57:02 2004 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Wed_Mar_17_2004_135653.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-90  align='top'></a></td><td>Some plots to look at b tag eff. in our ALPGEN QCD sample (50k events before I ran them through just L3) </td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared  -->


<!-- Date: Wed Mar 17 13:57:40 2004 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Wed_Mar_17_2004_135731.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-92  align='top'></a></td><td>Some plots to look at b tag eff. in our GR@PPA QCD sample (50k events before I ran them through just L3) </td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared  -->


<!-- Date: Wed Mar 17 13:59:06 2004 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Wed_Mar_17_2004_135848.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-94  align='top'></a></td><td>Some plots to look at b tag eff. in our PYTHIA (gg->A 90,50) sample (50k events before I ran them through just L3) </td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared  -->


<!-- Date: Fri Apr 2 21:54:30 2004 -->
<table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" border="1"> 
  <tbody><tr> 
    <th>Process</th> 
    <th>Cross Section</th> 
  </tr> 
  <tr> 
    <th>QCD->bbbb (Gr@ppa)</th> 
    <th>503.976 pb</th> 
  </tr> 
  <tr> 
    <th>gg->Abb (Pythia)</th> 
    <th>1.817e-8 mb</th> 
  </tr> 
 
  <tr> 
    <th>qq->Abb (Pythia)</th> 
    <th>1.408e-10 mb</th> 
  </tr> 
  <tr> 
 
 
</tbody></table>
<!-- Author: Jared -->


<!-- Date: Tue Apr 13 13:24:49 2004 -->
<center><a href='/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Tue_Apr_13_2004_132350.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-96' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Tue_Apr_13_2004_132413.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-98' ></a></center>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Tue Apr 13 13;29;23 comment by...Jared -->
<pre>Efficiency of SexVtx and Combined taggers for signal (A=90, tanB=50).  Not sure how to keep the error bars &lt; 1.</pre>


<!-- Date: Tue Apr 27 17:12:12 2004 -->
<center><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-99&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-99' width='300'></a><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-100&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-100' width='300'></a><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-101&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-101' width='300'></a></center>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Tue Apr 27 18;29;11 comment by...Jared -->
<pre><b>gg->bbA

tanB=50 mA=90</b></pre>
<!-- Date: Tue Apr 27 17:14:37 2004 -->
<center><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-102&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-102' width='300'></a><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-103&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-103' width='300'></a><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-104&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-104' width='300'></a></center>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Tue Apr 27 18;30;18 comment by...Jared -->
<pre><b>QCD->bbbb</b>

GRAPPA</pre>
<!-- Date: Tue Apr 27 18:26:32 2004 -->
<center><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-105&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-105' width='300'></a><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-106&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-106' width='300'></a><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-107&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-107' width='300'></a></center>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Tue Apr 27 18;31;33 comment by...Jared -->
<b>bb2p15</b>



<!-- Date: Wed Apr 28 13:03:22 2004 -->
Cuts in Run 1 paper:<br><br> 
 
Trigger:<br> 
4+ "Jets" w/ 15 GeV Et (Contiguous Calor. Towers)<br> 
Et > 125 GeV<br> 
<br> 
Analysis:<br> 
4+ Jets w/ 15 GeV Et (0.4 cone, corrected)<br> 
Et dependent cuts on Et of J1,J2,J3 (42,34,14 GeV for 90 GeV)<br> 
3+ of J1-J4 4 btagged<br> 
delta-phi > 109 degrees (1.9) for B1,B2 (highest Et btagged jets)<br> 
<br> 
Mass:<br> 
M12 for Mh>120 (resolution ~13%)<br> 
M23 for Mh<=120 (resolution ~25%)<br> 
Mass window for M12 or M23 mass dependent<br> 
Mass window for MB12 mass dependent (also applied)<br> 
<br> 
Efficiency<br> 
Trigger Efficiency: 1-7% (1.7% for Mh=90)<br> 
Jet Energy cuts Efficiency: 10-93% (89.7% for Mh=90)<br> 
3+ b Efficiency: (27.6%/20.2% for Mh=90)<br> 
Total Efficiency Run 2/Run 1 Efficiency: (0.42%/0.22% for Mh=90)<br> 
(note: b-tagging estimate based on "increased acceptance to eta=2" assumption. Run 2 estimate also seems to be missing mass window and delta-phi cuts)<br> 
<br> 
Numbers/100 pb<br> 
QCD: 2.37<br> 
Fakes: 0.55<br> 
tt: 0.77<br> 
Wbb/Wcc: 0.1<br> 
Zbb/Zcc: 0.41<br> 
Total: 4.2<br>
<!-- Author: Pete -->


<!-- Date: Tue May 11 14:43:30 2004 -->
<table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" border="1"> <tbody><tr> <th>MC Sample</th> <th>"L3" Eff. Run 1</th> <th>"L3" Eff. Run 2</th> </tr> <tr> <th>QCD->bbbb</th> <th>0.48%</th> <th>4.0%</th> </tr> <tr> <th>gg->Abb (mA=90, tanB=50)</th> <th>0.45%</th> <th>2.9%</th> </tr> <tr> <th>qq->Abb (mA=90, tanB=50)</th> <th>27%</th> <th>62%</th> </tr> <tr> <th>bb2p15</th> <th>3.2%</th> <th>14%</th> </tr> <tr> </tbody></table>  
  
<pre>L3 Run 1 
  -4 jet15 
  -sumEt 125 
 
L3 Run 2 
  -3 jet10 
  -sumEt 100</pre>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Tue May 11 14;50;15 comment by...Jared -->
<i>"L3" Eff.</i> means percent of events that pass the L3 cuts.



<!-- Date: Mon Jun 7 23:33:33 2004 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Mon_Jun__7_2004_233322.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-109  align='top'></a></td><td>Here are the latest fit results for the number of double tagged fake events and inclusive top events with varying jet energy corrections and invariant mass cuts. </td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: lauren -->


<!-- Date: Tue Jun 8 15:36:00 2004 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Tue_Jun__8_2004_153546.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-111  align='top'></a></td><td>a more complete set of fit results, including results for bbbb and bb2p15</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: lauren -->


<!-- Date: Wed Jun 9 14:17:33 2004 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Wed_Jun__9_2004_141506.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-113  align='top'></a></td><td>This is a copy of my senior thesis.  There isn't too much in the way of substantial information in it--written by a undergraduate for other undergraduates.  Its 'theory' heavy because we didn't really have any results from the fitter yet.   But is generally goes over the method for determining the QCD background</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: lauren -->


<!-- Date: Wed Jun 16 17:26:56 2004 -->
<p>Here is our current disk usage for data and MC stntuples for the MSSM Higgs search.  I have put in multipliers after the current usage to roughly account for near-term increases in lumi etc: 
<p> 
Data: 
<ul> 
   <li> ehig08/09: 300 GB.  Multiply by 2 for new data. 
   <li> gjet08/09: 535 GB.  Multiply by 2 for new data. 
</ul> 
 
MC: 
<ul> 
   <li> QCD: 55 GB.  Multiply by 2 due to low stats 
   <li> Top: 30 GB. 
   <li> EW: None right now.  Probably need 10-15 GB. 
   <li> Signals: 10 GB per mass point in (mH, tanB) space.   Currently 
     have 65 GB, need 10x10 grid of points: 1000 GB 
</ul> 
 
Grand total of current disk space: 985 GB.<p> 
<b>Grand total of needed disk space: 2820 GB.</b><p> 
 
Some of this MC could be shared, but only by people who care about fully hadronic final states.  And on the other side of the coin, the leptonic final state people rarely make MC that has inclusive decay modes of W's or Z's.  
<!-- Author: Aaron -->


<!-- Date: Tue Jun 22 09:34:56 2004 -->
<h2>E-Mails from Lauren and Frank Filthaut about TFractionFitter::GetPlot()</h2> 
<pre> 
From: "Lauren Tompkins" <tompkins@uclink.berkeley.edu> 
To: aarond@fnal.gov 
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 11:23 PM 
Subject: Re: TFractionFitter Question 
 
I understand what it is now--in the EML method, we use the A_ji (number of 
MC events from source j in bin i), which are unknown, rather than the a_ji, 
which are known in the ML method. get prediction plots the solved for A_ji 
 
 
----- Original Message -----  
From: "Frank Filthaut" <filthaut@hef.kun.nl> 
To: "Lauren Tompkins" <tompkins@uclink.berkeley.edu> 
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 11:23 PM 
Subject: Re: TFractionFitter Question 
 
 
 
>>   Hi Lauren, 
>> 
>> GetPrediction() returns the "fluctuated" predictions for the 
>> specified MC template. That is, according to the fit philosophy, the 
>> input templates are merely samples drawn from corresponding "true" 
>> distributions, and what you get back is the best attempt to get to these 
>> "true" distributions. So what you should find is that if you add these 
>> with the corresponding (fitted) MC fractions, you should recover the total 
>> distribution that you obtain through GetPlot(). 
>> 
>> Were you successful in applying the fit constraint? 
>> 
>>                          Cheers, 
>>                          Frank 
>> 
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Lauren Tompkins wrote: 
>> 
> 
>>> > Hi Frank, 
>>> > 
>>> > I had another question about TFractionFitter.  Aaron and I cannot figure 
>>> > out how the histogram which is returned when one calls 
>>> > TFractionFitter::GetPrediction is created.  We understand that it is not 
>>> > the sum of the weighted input monte carlos so we were wondering what 
>>> > else could it be.  Can you explain to me where it comes from? 
>>> > 
>>> > thanks, 
>>> > ~lauren 
</pre>
<!-- Author: Aaron -->


<!-- Date: Tue Jul 13 16:23:27 2004 -->
<pre>D0 Signal cross sections: 
 
They use numbers from Wilenbrock, et al., hep-ph/0204093 v2 - May 23, 
2003. 
mh=100 6.45fb 
mh=120 3.03fb 
mh=150 1.14fb 
mh=200 0.25fb 
These numbers include the pT&gt;15 GeV cut on the Higgs. We applied this cut at the Pythia generator level. You can also see in this paper the Higgs pT spectrum, which we normalized our Pythia MC to. 
 
Then they scale up these cross sections by TanB^2</pre>
<!-- Author: Aaron -->


<!-- Date: Wed Jul 14 19:23:51 2004 -->
<table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" border="1">  
<tbody> 
 
<tr> <th>Process</th> <th>Mass A</th> <th>TanB</th> <th>Cross Section</br>CTEQ3L</th> <th>Cross Section</br>CTEQ5L</th> <th>Cross Section</br>CTEQ5M1</th></tr>  
 
<tr> <th>gg->bbA</th> <th>90</th> <th>30</th> <th>9.992e-9</th> <th>6.605e-9</th> <th>8.804e-9</th> </tr>  
<tr> <th>qq->bbA</th> <th>90</th> <th>30</th> <th>5.106e-11</th> <th>5.219e-11</th> <th>6.022e-11</th> </tr>  
<tr><th></th></tr> 
<tr> <th>gg->bbA</th> <th>90</th> <th>40</th> <th>1.770e-8</th> <th>1.175e-8</th> <th>1.554e-8</th> </tr>  
<tr> <th>qq->bbA</th> <th>90</th> <th>40</th> <th>8.836e-11</th> <th>9.114e-11</th> <th>1.047e-10</th> </tr>  
<tr><th></th></tr> 
<tr> <th>gg->bbA</th> <th>90</th> <th>50</th> <th>2.690e-8</th> <th>1.817e-8</th> <th>2.422e-8</th> </tr>  
<tr> <th>qq->bbA</th> <th>90</th> <th>50</th> <th>1.385e-10</th> <th>1.398e-10</th> <th>1.626e-10</th> </tr>  
<tr><th></th></tr> 
<tr> <th>gg->bbA</th> <th>100</th> <th>30</th> <th>6.640e-9</th> <th>4.317e-9</th> <th>5.736e-9</th> </tr>  
<tr> <th>qq->bbA</th> <th>100</th> <th>30</th> <th>3.349e-11</th> <th>3.411e-11</th> <th>3.902e-11</th> </tr>  
<tr><th></th></tr> 
<tr> <th>gg->bbA</th> <th>100</th> <th>40</th> <th>1.170e-8</th> <th>7.674e-9</th> <th>1.000e-8</th> </tr>  
<tr> <th>qq->bbA</th> <th>100</th> <th>40</th> <th>5.915e-11</th> <th>6.033e-11</th> <th>6.870e-11</th> </tr>  
<tr><th></th></tr> 
<tr> <th>gg->bbA</th> <th>100</th> <th>50</th> <th>1.822e-8</th> <th>1.192e-8</th> <th>1.568e-8</th> </tr>  
<tr> <th>qq->bbA</th> <th>100</th> <th>50</th> <th>9.200e-11</th> <th>9.300e-11</th> <th>1.050e-10</th> </tr>  
 
 
</tbody></table>  
 
<b>Cross section list in mb</b></br>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Wed Jul 14 19;28;57 comment by...Jared -->
<pre>These are the cross sections that I got out of pythia. CTEQ5L seems to produce small x-sect than either CTEQ3L or CTEQ5M1... at least for gg.

</pre>
<!-- Comment: Wed Jul 14 20;38;41 comment by...Aaron -->
<pre>I think pythia reports cross sections in mb.</pre>
<!-- Date: Wed Jul 14 19:24:53 2004 -->
<table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" border="1">  
<tbody> 
<tr> <th>Mass A</th> <th>TanB</th> <th>L2 Run1 Eff.</th></tr>  
 
<tr> <th>90</th> <th>50</th> <th>0.8%</th>  </tr>  
<tr> <th>100</th> <th>50</th> <th>1.1%</th>  </tr>  
<tr> <th>120</th> <th>50</th> <th>1.8%</th>  </tr>  
 
</tbody></table> 
<!-- Author: Jared -->



<!-- Date: Wed Jul 14 20:35:30 2004 -->
<h2>bbA Cross Sections from Spira's pphtt</h2> 
Here are cross sections from <a href=http://people.web.psi.ch/spira/hqq/>Michael Spira's PPHTT program </a>for <a href=http://wwwasdoc.web.cern.ch/wwwasdoc/pdflib.ps.gz>various PDFs from PDFLIB</a> and for two different versions.  As far as I can tell, the difference between v1.0 and v1.1 is the scale used for the running b mass in the Yukawa coupling.  In v1.0 it is at the scale Q=M_{HQQ}, in v1.1 it is Q=(M_H+2*M_Q)/2.<p> 
This seems to make about a factor of two difference in the cross sections. 
<p> 
Also, the CTEQ5M structure functions seem to give the smallest cross sections for v1.0 but not v1.1.  What we have been using so far is v1.0 with CTEQ5M.<p> 
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" border="1" 
style="text-align: left; width: 620px; height: 146px;"> 
<tbody> 
<tr> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">PDF and PPHTT version<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">tanB=30 mA=90 (pb)<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">tanB=30 mA=100 (pb)<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">tanB=50 mA=90 (pb)<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">tanB=50 mA=100 (pb)<br> 
</td> 
</tr> 
<tr> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">CTEQ3L, v1.0<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">6.65<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">4.28<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">18.48<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">11.88<br> 
</td> 
</tr> 
<tr> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">CTEQ3L, v1.1<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">13.93<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">8.71<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">38.70<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">24.20<br> 
</td> 
</tr> 
<tr> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">CTEQ4L, v1.0<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">5.12<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">3.26<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">14.22<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">9.06<br> 
</td> 
</tr> 
<tr> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">CTEQ4L, v1.1<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">10.86<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">6.71<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">30.15<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">18.64<br> 
</td> 
</tr> 
<tr> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">CTEQ5L, v1.0<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">4.54<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2.87<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">12.62<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">7.97<br> 
</td> 
</tr> 
<tr> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">CTEQ5L, v1.1<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">9.32<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">5.71<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">25.90<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">15.87<br> 
</td> 
</tr> 
<tr> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">CTEQ5M, v1.0<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">4.50<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2.82<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">12.50<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">7.84<br> 
</td> 
</tr> 
<tr> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">CTEQ5M, v1.1<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">9.75<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">6.07<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">27.08<br> 
</td> 
<td style="vertical-align: top;">16.85<br> 
</td> 
</tr> 
</tbody> 
</table> 
<br> 
 
<!-- Author: Aaron -->
<!-- Comment: Wed Jul 14 20;36;23 comment by...Aaron -->
<pre>These cross sections are the sum of the ggA and qqA processes.</pre>



<!-- Date: Thu Jul 15 11:18:22 2004 -->
<table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" border="1">  
<tbody> 
<tr> <th>Background</th> <th>Cross Section</th> <th>L2 Run1 Eff.</th></tr>  
 
<tr> <th>QCD->bbbb</th> <th>504 pb</th> <th>0.6%</th>  </tr>  
<tr> <th>Wbb (W->inclusive)</th> <th>809 pb</th> <th>8.5%</th>  </tr>  
<tr> <th>bb2p15</th> <th>28.6 mb</th> <th>3.5%</th>  </tr>  
 
</tbody></table>  
  
<!-- Author: Jared -->


<!-- Date: Fri Jul 16 10:22:24 2004 -->
<table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" border="1"> <tbody> 
<tr> 
<th></th><th>CQTEQ5L</br>gg</th><th>CQTEQ5L</br>qq</th><th>CQTEQ5L</br>tot</th> 
<th>CQTEQ3L</br>gg</th><th>CQTEQ3L</br>qq</th><th>CQTEQ3L</br>tot</th> 
</tr> 
<tr> 
<th>xsec</th><th>18.17</th><th>0.14</th><th>18.31</th> 
<th>26.90</th><th>0.14</th><th>27.04</th> 
</tr> 
<tr> 
<th>#MC</th><th>139992</th><th>59163</th><th>---</th> 
<th>100730</th><th>51000</th><th>---</th> 
</tr> 
<tr> 
<th>PassL2</br>(Eff)</br>xsec</th><th>888</br>(0.6%)</br>0.115</th><th>12777</br>(21.60%)</br>0.030</th><th></br>(0.79%)</br>0.145</th> 
<th>710</br>(0.7%)</br>0.190</th><th>10935</br>(21.44%)</br>0.030</th><th></br>(0.81%)</br>0.220</th> 
</tr> 
<tr> 
 
<tr> 
<th>Kinematics</br>(Eff)</br>xsec</th><th>130</br>(0.09%)</br>0.017</th><th>2774</br>(4.7%)</br>0.007</th><th></br>(0.13%)</br>0.023</th> 
<th>105</br>(0.10%)</br>0.028</th><th>2381</br>(4.7%)</br>0.007</th><th></br>(0.13%)</br>0.035</th> 
</tr> 
<tr> 
 
<tr> 
<th>Btagging</br>(Eff)</br>xsec</th><th>8</br>(0.006%)</br>0.0010</th><th>356</br>(0.602%)</br>0.0008</th><th></br>(0.010%)</br>0.0019</th> 
<th>12</br>(0.01%)</br>0.0032</th><th>330</br>(0.647%)</br>0.0009</th><th></br>(0.0152%)</br>0.0041</th> 
</tr> 
<tr> 
 
<tr> 
<th>BJetKin</br>(Eff)</br>xsec</th><th>5</br>(0.0036%)</br>0.00065</th><th>246</br>(0.416%)</br>0.00058</th><th></br>(0.0067%)</br>0.00123</th> 
<th>9</br>(0.0089%)</br>0.00240</th><th>232</br>(0.455%)</br>0.00063</th><th></br>(0.0112%)</br>0.00304</th> 
</tr> 
<tr> 
</tbody></table>  
<!-- Author: Pete -->


<!-- Date: Fri Jul 16 10:30:30 2004 -->
<pre>This is for MA=90 GeV, Tan Beta=50.</pre>
<!-- Author: Pete -->


<!-- Date: Thu Jul 29 16:36:49 2004 -->
<center><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-114&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-114' width='300'></a><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-115&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-115' width='300'></a><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-116&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-116' width='300'></a></center>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Thu Jul 29 16;44;23 comment by...Jared -->
<pre>Here are some plots of the invariant mass of two highest b-tagged jets in ff-&gt;gZ and fg-&gt;fZ where the Z is forced to bbbar.  The combined cross section for the two processes is 1.4e-6 mb (1.4 nb?), and the total eff after requiring 2 b-tags is 243/200k (0.12%).

</pre>

<!-- Comment: Thu Jul 29 16;46;21 comment by...Jared -->
<pre>The plots are of the combined sample (ff-&gt;gZ and fg-&gt;fZ), with jet corrections 0, 6, and 7.</pre>

<!-- Comment: Thu Jul 29 16;56;17 comment by...Jared -->
<b>Actually the combined efficiency is about 0.07%</b>


<!-- Date: Tue Aug 3 10:48:36 2004 -->
<pre>Signal numbers using Run 1 framework, adding trigger and loose btag.  See a consistent factor of two decrease from 3L-&gt;5L.  These improvements approximately double the acceptance (for 5L). 
 
&lt;table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" border="1"&gt; &lt;tbody&gt; &lt;tr&gt; &lt;th&gt;&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;CQTEQ5L&lt;/br&gt;gg&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;CQTEQ5L&lt;/br&gt;qq&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;CQTEQ5L&lt;/br&gt;tot&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;CQTEQ3L&lt;/br&gt;gg&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;CQTEQ3L&lt;/br&gt;qq&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;CQTEQ3L&lt;/br&gt;tot&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;/tr&gt; &lt;tr&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;xsec&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;18.17&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;0.14&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;18.31&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;26.90&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;0.14&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;27.04&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;/tr&gt; &lt;tr&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;#MC&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;139992&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;59163&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;---&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;100730&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;51000&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;---&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;/tr&gt; &lt;tr&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;Run 1 (JV)&lt;/br&gt;(Eff)&lt;/br&gt;xsec&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;5&lt;/br&gt;(0.0036%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00065&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;246&lt;/br&gt;(0.416%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00058&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;&lt;/br&gt;(0.0067%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00123&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;9&lt;/br&gt;(0.0089%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00240&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;232&lt;/br&gt;(0.455%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00063&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;&lt;/br&gt;(0.0112%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00304&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;/tr&gt; &lt;tr&gt; 
&lt;tr&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;+ Run 2 Trigger &lt;/br&gt;(Eff)&lt;/br&gt;xsec&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;8&lt;/br&gt;(0.0057%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0010&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;349&lt;/br&gt;(0.59%)&lt;/br&gt;0.000826&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;&lt;/br&gt;(0.0102%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00186&lt;/th&gt; &lt;th&gt;8&lt;/br&gt;(0.00794%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0021&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;323&lt;/br&gt;(0.633%)&lt;/br&gt;0.000887&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;&lt;/br&gt;(0.0112%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00302&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;/tr&gt; &lt;tr&gt; &lt;tr&gt;  
&lt;th&gt;+loose Btag&lt;/br&gt;(Eff)&lt;/br&gt;xsec&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;11&lt;/br&gt;(0.0079%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0014&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;547&lt;/br&gt;(0.92%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0013&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;&lt;/br&gt;(0.015%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0027&lt;/th&gt; &lt;th&gt;11&lt;/br&gt;(0.011%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0029&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;494&lt;/br&gt;(0.97%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0014&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;&lt;/br&gt;(0.0159%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0043&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt; &lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;</pre>
<!-- Author: Pete -->


<!-- Date: Tue Aug 3 10:49:38 2004 -->
Signal numbers using Run 1 framework, adding trigger and loose btag.  See a consistent factor of two decrease from 3L-&gt;5L.  These improvements approximately double the acceptance (for 5L). 
 
&lt;table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" border="1"&gt; &lt;tbody&gt; &lt;tr&gt; &lt;th&gt;&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;CQTEQ5L&lt;/br&gt;gg&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;CQTEQ5L&lt;/br&gt;qq&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;CQTEQ5L&lt;/br&gt;tot&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;CQTEQ3L&lt;/br&gt;gg&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;CQTEQ3L&lt;/br&gt;qq&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;CQTEQ3L&lt;/br&gt;tot&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;/tr&gt; &lt;tr&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;xsec&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;18.17&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;0.14&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;18.31&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;26.90&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;0.14&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;27.04&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;/tr&gt; &lt;tr&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;#MC&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;139992&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;59163&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;---&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;100730&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;51000&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;---&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;/tr&gt; &lt;tr&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;Run 1 (JV)&lt;/br&gt;(Eff)&lt;/br&gt;xsec&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;5&lt;/br&gt;(0.0036%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00065&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;246&lt;/br&gt;(0.416%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00058&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;&lt;/br&gt;(0.0067%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00123&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;9&lt;/br&gt;(0.0089%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00240&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;232&lt;/br&gt;(0.455%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00063&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;&lt;/br&gt;(0.0112%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00304&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;/tr&gt; &lt;tr&gt; 
&lt;tr&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;+ Run 2 Trigger &lt;/br&gt;(Eff)&lt;/br&gt;xsec&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;8&lt;/br&gt;(0.0057%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0010&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;349&lt;/br&gt;(0.59%)&lt;/br&gt;0.000826&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;&lt;/br&gt;(0.0102%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00186&lt;/th&gt; &lt;th&gt;8&lt;/br&gt;(0.00794%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0021&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;323&lt;/br&gt;(0.633%)&lt;/br&gt;0.000887&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;&lt;/br&gt;(0.0112%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00302&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;/tr&gt; &lt;tr&gt; &lt;tr&gt;  
&lt;th&gt;+loose Btag&lt;/br&gt;(Eff)&lt;/br&gt;xsec&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;11&lt;/br&gt;(0.0079%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0014&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;547&lt;/br&gt;(0.92%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0013&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;&lt;/br&gt;(0.015%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0027&lt;/th&gt; &lt;th&gt;11&lt;/br&gt;(0.011%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0029&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;494&lt;/br&gt;(0.97%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0014&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;&lt;/br&gt;(0.0159%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0043&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt; &lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;
<!-- Author: Pete -->


<!-- Date: Tue Aug 3 10:51:25 2004 -->
&lt;table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" border="1"&gt; &lt;tbody&gt; &lt;tr&gt; &lt;th&gt;&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;CQTEQ5L&lt;/br&gt;gg&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;CQTEQ5L&lt;/br&gt;qq&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;CQTEQ5L&lt;/br&gt;tot&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;CQTEQ3L&lt;/br&gt;gg&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;CQTEQ3L&lt;/br&gt;qq&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;CQTEQ3L&lt;/br&gt;tot&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;/tr&gt; &lt;tr&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;xsec&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;18.17&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;0.14&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;18.31&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;26.90&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;0.14&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;27.04&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;/tr&gt; &lt;tr&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;#MC&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;139992&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;59163&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;---&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;100730&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;51000&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;---&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;/tr&gt; &lt;tr&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;Run 1 (JV)&lt;/br&gt;(Eff)&lt;/br&gt;xsec&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;5&lt;/br&gt;(0.0036%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00065&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;246&lt;/br&gt;(0.416%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00058&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;&lt;/br&gt;(0.0067%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00123&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;9&lt;/br&gt;(0.0089%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00240&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;232&lt;/br&gt;(0.455%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00063&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;&lt;/br&gt;(0.0112%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00304&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;/tr&gt; &lt;tr&gt; 
&lt;tr&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;+ Run 2 Trigger &lt;/br&gt;(Eff)&lt;/br&gt;xsec&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;8&lt;/br&gt;(0.0057%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0010&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;349&lt;/br&gt;(0.59%)&lt;/br&gt;0.000826&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;&lt;/br&gt;(0.0102%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00186&lt;/th&gt; &lt;th&gt;8&lt;/br&gt;(0.00794%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0021&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;323&lt;/br&gt;(0.633%)&lt;/br&gt;0.000887&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;&lt;/br&gt;(0.0112%)&lt;/br&gt;0.00302&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;/tr&gt; &lt;tr&gt; &lt;tr&gt;  
&lt;th&gt;+loose Btag&lt;/br&gt;(Eff)&lt;/br&gt;xsec&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;11&lt;/br&gt;(0.0079%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0014&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;547&lt;/br&gt;(0.92%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0013&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;&lt;/br&gt;(0.015%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0027&lt;/th&gt; &lt;th&gt;11&lt;/br&gt;(0.011%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0029&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;494&lt;/br&gt;(0.97%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0014&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;th&gt;&lt;/br&gt;(0.0159%)&lt;/br&gt;0.0043&lt;/th&gt; 
&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt; &lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;
<!-- Author: Pete -->
<!-- Comment: Tue Aug  3 11;07;58 comment by...Pete -->
<pre>Please ignore these wrongly formatted tables... having clicked something wrong early on, all of the '&lt;' and '&gt;' were converted into something else... they looked fine in preview, but obviously came out wrong.  The corrected version follows.</pre>
<!-- Date: Tue Aug 3 11:04:18 2004 -->
<table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" border="1">  
<tbody> <tr> <th></th> 
<th>CQTEQ5L</br>gg</th> 
<th>CQTEQ5L</br>qq</th> 
<th>CQTEQ5L</br>tot</th> 
<th>CQTEQ3L</br>gg</th> 
<th>CQTEQ3L</br>qq</th> 
<th>CQTEQ3L</br>tot</th> 
</tr> <tr> 
<th>xsec</th> 
<th>18.17</th> 
<th>0.14</th> 
<th>18.31</th> 
<th>26.90</th> 
<th>0.14</th> 
<th>27.04</th> 
</tr> <tr> 
<th>#MC</th> 
<th>139992</th> 
<th>59163</th> 
<th>---</th> 
<th>100730</th> 
<th>51000</th> 
<th>---</th> 
</tr> <tr> 
<th>Run 1 (JV)</br>(Eff)</br>xsec</th> 
<th>5</br>(0.0036%)</br>0.00065</th> 
<th>246</br>(0.416%)</br>0.00058</th> 
<th></br>(0.0067%)</br>0.00123</th> 
<th>9</br>(0.0089%)</br>0.00240</th> 
<th>232</br>(0.455%)</br>0.00063</th> 
<th></br>(0.0112%)</br>0.00304</th> 
</tr> <tr> 
<tr> 
<th>+ Run 2 Trigger </br>(Eff)</br>xsec</th> 
<th>8</br>(0.0057%)</br>0.0010</th> 
<th>349</br>(0.59%)</br>0.000826</th> 
<th></br>(0.0102%)</br>0.00186</th> <th>8</br>(0.00794%)</br>0.0021</th> 
<th>323</br>(0.633%)</br>0.000887</th> 
<th></br>(0.0112%)</br>0.00302</th> 
</tr> <tr> <tr>  
<th>+loose Btag</br>(Eff)</br>xsec</th> 
<th>11</br>(0.0079%)</br>0.0014</th> 
<th>547</br>(0.92%)</br>0.0013</th> 
<th></br>(0.015%)</br>0.0027</th> <th>11</br>(0.011%)</br>0.0029</th> 
<th>494</br>(0.97%)</br>0.0014</th> 
<th></br>(0.0159%)</br>0.0043</th> 
</tr><tr> </tbody></table>
<!-- Author: Pete -->
<!-- Comment: Tue Aug  3 11;05;29 comment by...Pete -->
<pre>See consistent decrease of factor of 2 from 3L-&gt;5L.  In 5L, improvements approximately double the acceptance.</pre>



<!-- Date: Wed Aug 4 18:39:37 2004 -->
<table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" border="1">  
<tbody> <tr>  
<th></th>  
<th>GRAPPA</br>bbbb</th> 
<th>ALPGEN</br>bbbb</th> 
<th>ALPGEN</br>Wbb</th> 
<th>bb2p15</br>gg</th>  
</tr> <tr> 
<th>#MC</th>  
<th>613849</th>  
<th>87490</th>  
<th>52495</th>  
<th>94987</th>  
</tr> <tr>  
<th>Run 1 (JV)</br>(Eff)</th> 
<th>27</br>(0.0044%)</th>  
<th>13</br>(0.0149%)</th>  
<th>4</br>(0.0076%)</th>  
<th>0</br>(0.0000%)</th>  
</tr> <tr>  
<tr>  
<th>+ Run 2 Trigger </br>(Eff)</th> 
<th>41</br>(0.0067%)</th>  
<th>29</br>(0.0331%)</th>  
<th> 7</br>(0.0133%)</th>  
<th> 0</br>(0.0000%)</th> 
</tr> <tr>  
<tr>  
<th>+loose Btag</br>(Eff)</th> 
<th>65</br>(0.0106%)</th> 
<th>44</br>(0.0503%)</th> 
<th>17</br>(0.0324%)</th> 
<th> 1</br>(0.0011%)</th> 
</tr><tr>  
</tbody></table>
<!-- Author: Pete -->
<!-- Comment: Wed Aug  4 18;41;50 comment by...Pete -->
<pre>These are preliminary(missing x-sections at the moment), using Run 1 cuts with only the changes listed.  Where the signal increased by a factor of ~2, the backgrounds increased by a factor of 2-4, which is probably a statistical win.  </pre>


<!-- Date: Mon Aug 9 14:40:39 2004 -->
<h2>MC Cross Sections for stntuples used in our analysis</h2> 
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" border="1" 
 style="text-align: left; width: 601px; height: 562px;"> 
  <tbody> 
    <tr> 
      <td>Name<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top; font-weight: bold;">MC Cross 
Section (pb)<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top; font-weight: bold;">Comments<br> 
      </td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">bb0p25<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">39901 &plusmn; 54<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">bb, cc &amp; j series by 
Weiming+Claudio<br> 
      </td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">bb1p25<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">334775 &plusmn; 517<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">ALPGEN for bb, cc &amp; j series<br> 
      </td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">bb2p25<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">359174 &plusmn; 622<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br> 
      </td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">cc0p25<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">41134 &plusmn; 41<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br> 
      </td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">cc1p25<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">584234 &plusmn; 897<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br> 
      </td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">cc2p25<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">1149920 &plusmn; 2719<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br> 
      </td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">j2p25<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">10561 &plusmn; 16<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br> 
      </td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">j3p25<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">18745 &plusmn; 31<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br> 
      </td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">j4p25<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">9842 &plusmn; 16<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br> 
      </td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">bb2p15</span><br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">28189 
&plusmn; 40</span><br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">Made by Patrizia. Use for 4b qcd 
2tag measurement<br> 
      </td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">bbbb</span><br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">504</span><br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">GR@PPA QCD bg made by Jared. Use 
for signal region<br> 
      </td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top; font-weight: bold;">ttopei<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top; font-weight: bold;">6.70 + 0.71 - 
0.88<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">Cacciari et al<br> 
      </td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top; font-weight: bold;">Wbb<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top; font-weight: bold;">809<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">ALPGEN W-&gt;inclusive by Jared<br> 
      </td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top; font-weight: bold;">fftogZ<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top; font-weight: bold;">10200<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">PYTHIA ff-&gt;gZ by Jared. Don't 
know if Z decay is inclusive or just hadronic<br> 
      </td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top; font-weight: bold;">fgtofZ<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top; font-weight: bold;">5061<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">PYTHIA fg-&gt;fZ by Jared<br> 
      </td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">bbbb0p15<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">????<br> 
      </td> 
      <td style="vertical-align: top;">ALPGEN QCD 4b made by Jared. 
Don't know xsec<br> 
      </td> 
    </tr> 
  </tbody> 
</table> 
<br>
<!-- Author: Aaron -->
<!-- Comment: Mon Dec 13 17;46;15 comment by...Aaron -->
<table border=0><td><tr><td bgcolor=#e0e030><pre>The Wbb cross section should be 0.809pb, not 809pb.</pre></td></tr></td></table>
<!-- Comment: Mon Dec 13 17;47;58 comment by...Jared -->
<table border=0><td><tr><td bgcolor=#e0e030><pre>Wbb should be 0.809236 +- 0.000411627</pre></td></tr></td></table>
<!-- Date: Mon Aug 30 15:12:30 2004 -->
<center><a href='/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Mon_Aug_30_2004_150002.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-120' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Mon_Aug_30_2004_150028.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-122' ></a></center>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Mon Aug 30 15;20;52 comment by...Jared -->
<br>
Left Plot: CDF Run 1 limit.<br>  
Right Plot: Discovery reach in CDF Run 2.<br>
<br>
<a href='http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/Tevatron-Connection/Higgs_D0.pdf'>Link</a> to D0 talk.  Slide 20 has there limit and reach. 

<!-- Comment: Wed Sep 15 14;04;25 comment by...Jared, Sunil -->
<pre>The result and sensitivity plots above made by J. Valls' don't seem to be internally consistant.  The 100 pb-1 sensitivity curve hit 150 gev at 150 tanb, but the run 1 limit is about 150 gev at 80 tanb.  One would have expected the reverse.  

A point of comparison between D0 run2 result (3/04) and CDF limit above: D0 curve goes through 100 gev 100 tanb. scaling by sqrt of the luminosity ratio that point for run 1 91 pb-1 should have been 100 gev 120 tanb.


</pre>


<!-- Date: Tue Sep 28 17:28:13 2004 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Tue_Sep_28_2004_172757.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-124  align='top'></a></td><td>My talk at Tev4LHC.</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared -->


<!-- Date: Mon Oct 4 13:04:21 2004 -->
<pre>Here some ratio's for different pdfs.  Amit generated them using the perscription found here:  http://cdfrh0.grid.umich.edu/~miller/pdf/pdf_acceptance.html 
 
gg2bbA_90_50 
 Ratio of MRST72 to CTEQ5L PDF's:  cross section 1.25782 acceptance: 1.01024 +/- 1.68688e-05 
 Ratio of MRST75 to MRST72 PDF's:  cross section 1.03521 acceptance: 0.987934 +/- 3.68973e-05 
 Ratio of CTEQ6L1 to CTEQ6L PDF's:  cross section 0.99251 acceptance: 1.00022 +/- 4.89515e-06 
 Ratio of CTEQ6M (NLO) to CTEQ5L (LO) PDF's:  cross section 1.29651 acceptance: 0.992993 +/- 4.70613e-05 
 
qq2bbA_90_50 
 Ratio of MRST72 to CTEQ5L PDF's:  cross section 1.0405 acceptance: 1.00195 +/- 1.72885e-05 
 Ratio of MRST75 to MRST72 PDF's:  cross section 0.955583 acceptance: 0.999349 +/- 2.09421e-05 
 Ratio of CTEQ6L1 to CTEQ6L PDF's:  cross section 0.969921 acceptance: 0.99933 +/- 6.56265e-06 
 Ratio of CTEQ6M (NLO) to CTEQ5L (LO) PDF's:  cross section 1.02523 acceptance: 1.00186 +/- 1.75983e-05 
 
gg2bbA_90_100 
 Ratio of MRST72 to CTEQ5L PDF's:  cross section 1.25472 acceptance: 1.0119 +/- 1.75143e-05 
 Ratio of MRST75 to MRST72 PDF's:  cross section 1.03385 acceptance: 0.984374 +/- 3.76653e-05 
 Ratio of CTEQ6L1 to CTEQ6L PDF's:  cross section 0.991832 acceptance: 1.00001 +/- 4.98779e-06 
 Ratio of CTEQ6M (NLO) to CTEQ5L (LO) PDF's:  cross section 1.29345 acceptance: 0.988409 +/- 4.67305e-05</pre>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Fri Oct 22 11;54;30 comment by...Jared -->
<pre>with the help of Amit, it looks like there isn't much difference between cteq6l and cteq5l.

the ratio of 6l to 5l for the above samples is .98 - 1.00.

jared.800_gg2bbA_90_50.txt:Num 3 All Pre cut Ratio of pdf's is 3979.47for num. 
events 4000 scale factor of 0.994868
jared.800_gg2bbA_90_50.txt:Num 3 All Cut Ratio] of pdf's is 1184.56for num. 
events 1188 scale factor of 0.997101
jared.810_qq2bbA_90_50.txt:Num 3 All Pre cut Ratio of pdf's is 3954.44for num. 
events 4000 scale factor of 0.988611
jared.810_qq2bbA_90_50.txt:Num 3 All Cut Ratio] of pdf's is 3510.81for num. 
events 3550 scale factor of 0.988961
jared.907_gg2bbA_90_100.txt:Num 3 All Pre cut Ratio of pdf's is 3987.2for num. 
events 4000 scale factor of 0.9968
jared.907_gg2bbA_90_100.txt:Num 3 All Cut Ratio] of pdf's is 1154.45for num. 
events 1154 scale factor of 1.00039  </pre>
<!-- Date: Mon Oct 11 13:32:33 2004 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Mon_Oct_11_2004_133225.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-126  align='top'></a></td><td>Example of scan from minuit after fit using opticuts.C macro.</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Aaron -->


<!-- Date: Mon Oct 11 13:47:33 2004 -->
<h2>Cut optimizer</h2> 
I comitted a basic cut optimizer to the repository, called Higgs/Analyses/bbAtobbbb/OptiCuts.{hh,cc}.  It uses MINUIT, <a href="http://wwwasdoc.web.cern.ch/wwwasdoc/minuit/minmain.html">see manual here</a>, to minimize the -CL_s or -S/sqrt(B).  <p> 
 
Right now only -S/sqrt(B) is implemented, but there is a clear hook for using the full histogram of a final variable, right now it is M_bb, to calculate CL_s from MC background and signals.<p> 
 
Right now the only cut it optimizes is Et_jet1 for correction level 0.  If you want to add more cuts then you need to modify two parts of the code: 
<pre> 
void OptiCuts::Optimize() { 
// near bottom 
// Define cuts to optimize (ie fit) 
  m->mnparm(0, "minEtJet1", 25.0, 0.5, 0, 0, ierflg); 
  m->mnparm(1, "someOtherCut", 25.0, 0.5, 0, 0, ierflg); 
 
// then optimize cuts... 
} 
</pre> 
 
and you also need to implement  the actual selection of events in OptiCuts::PassesCuts().<p> 
 
<b>Beware that starting values and step sizes can make a difference</b>, but I set the default number of maximum steps for SIMPLEX to take to be 500, which is quite a bit.<p> 
 
You can also get your hands on gMinuit after the fit is finished to make some cross checks, like scan the function versus a cut to make a plot of CL_s: 
<pre> 
// in your root session do something like this... 
.x Higgs/Analyses/bbAtobbbb/opticuts.C 
double arglist[4]={1,50,15,60} 
int ier 
gMinuit->mnexcm("SCAN",arglist,4,ier) 
TGraph *g = gMinuit->GetPlot()->Clone() 
g->Draw("al") 
</pre> 
This is how I made the plot above.<p>
<!-- Author: Aaron -->


<!-- Date: Sun Oct 17 17:54:32 2004 -->
<center><a href='/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Sun_Oct_17_2004_175335.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-128' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Sun_Oct_17_2004_175357.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-130' ></a></center>
<!-- Author: Pete -->
<!-- Comment: Sun Oct 17 17;56;25 comment by...Pete -->
<pre>Efficiencies as a function of mass for the gg signal (left) and the qq signal (right).  The red line is our current trigger, and the blue line is the run 1 trigger (equivalent to current Top Multijet trigger)</pre>



<!-- Date: Fri Oct 22 19:33:40 2004 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Fri_Oct_22_2004_193333.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-132  align='top'></a></td><td>draft of pdf note</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: jared -->


<!-- Date: Tue Nov 2 17:50:55 2004 -->
<center><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-139&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-139' width='300'></a><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-140&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-140' width='300'></a></center>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Tue Nov  2 17;56;31 comment by...Jared -->
<pre>Initial energy of interacting partons.  Before and after the run i L2 and selection cuts. 
</pre>
<!-- Date: Tue Nov 2 17:53:33 2004 -->
<center><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-141&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-141' width='300'></a><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-142&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-142' width='300'></a></center>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Tue Nov  2 18;03;44 comment by...Jared -->
<pre>Depending on what is considered large-x vs small-x our results might make since or not. 

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Wu-Ki Tung [mailto:tung@pa.msu.edu] 
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 11:49 AM
To: Somalwar@Physics.Rutgers.Edu
Subject: RE: Cteq3l vs cteq5l
Hi:
The major influence on the CTEQ5 analyses, as they progressed from CTEQ3,
are two (i) HERA data which changed the small-x behavior of all parton
distributions; and (ii) the CDF inclusive jet data which caused the large-x
gluon distribution to increase.  The b distribution, being "radiatively
generated" (i.e. coming from gluon splitting) in current global analyses,
reflects the behavior of the gluon.
Best regards,
Wu-Ki</pre>


<!-- Date: Tue Nov 9 16:06:31 2004 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Tue_Nov__9_2004_160617.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-144  align='top'></a></td><td>Signal (qq + gg) and background plots (bb2p15 + bbbb)</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Tue Nov  9 16;07;23 comment by...Jared -->
<pre>I don't really see any real promising variables.</pre>

<!-- Comment: Fri Nov 12 11;46;33 comment by...Jared -->
<b>Jet Correction 0</b>



<!-- Date: Fri Nov 12 17:38:52 2004 -->
<center><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-149&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-149' width='300'></a><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-150&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-150' width='300'></a></center>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Fri Nov 12 17;43;50 comment by...Jared -->
<pre>Plots from Beate:


Hi Aaron,
I am currently in Durham working with Stirling and Martin. I have
asked James about your process and how we should calculate it and
possible reasons for the discrepancy between CTEQ3 and CTEQ5. He was
very helpful and noted:

- if we are looking for a final state of Ab -> bbb we should not use
the gg->bbA production process but rather bg->bA since the unobserved
b is then taken into account by the b-PDF.  If we use gg->bbA we
effectively work in the "FIxed-Flavour Number Scheme" (FFNS) but the
PDF's were derived in the "Variable Flavour Number Scheme" (VFNS). We
suspect that CTEQ3 indeed worked in the FFNS but CTEQ5 for sure worked
in the VFNS. So, it may be that the Run1 result was indeed using a
self-consistent theory but Run 2 D0 is not. The different schemes
result in very different gluons. So, what do you think abut this? I am
not sure how exactly the process is even interfaced in PYTHIA. But
James said that this is tricky and people often make mistake either
double counting the two processes or not using the right one.
Apparently there were many such discussions of this related to the
Tevatron b-cross sections when they were "high".

- I made a plot comparing various gluons. It is attached. The gluons
from FFNS are softer at low x (CTEQ3L and MRSA) and harder at high x.
I also made the same plot for the bottom density. The same is seen. I
am not sure whether or not this is consistent with Jahred's
observation of the cross section being higher for CTEQ3. On average
x=0.05 and there for the b-quark CTEQ5L is higher than CTEQ3L and for
the gluon they happen to be exactly the same. So...it seems
inconsistent to me. It would be nice if Jahred could plot the
x-distributions.  <b>(ed. see above)</b>

Let me know what you think. I can ask him some more ;-)
Cheers,
    Beate
</pre>




<!-- Date: Fri Jan 14 15:54:47 2005 -->
<center><a href='/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Fri_Jan_14_2005_155204.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-152' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Fri_Jan_14_2005_155233.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-154' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Fri_Jan_14_2005_155239.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-156' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Fri_Jan_14_2005_155253.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-158' ></a></center>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Fri Jan 14 16;40;23 comment by...Jared -->
<pre>Just look at the green line and pink line.  Pink is the double tag sample from data and the green line is the double tag sample from our bb2p15 MC.  </pre>
<!-- Date: Fri Jan 14 15:55:33 2005 -->
<center><a href='/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Fri_Jan_14_2005_155317.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-166' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Fri_Jan_14_2005_155312.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-164' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Fri_Jan_14_2005_155306.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-162' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Fri_Jan_14_2005_155258.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-160' ></a></center>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Fri Jan 14 16;00;06 comment by...Jared -->
<table border=0><td><tr><td bgcolor=#e0e030><pre>Unfortunately the thumbnails didn't show up.  These are a comparison of the fake double tagges from data and the bb2p15 MC. </pre></td></tr></td></table>



<!-- Date: Mon Jan 17 13:59:01 2005 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Mon_Jan_17_2005_135831.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-168  align='top'></a></td><td>My Higgs WG update from Nov 19, 04.</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared -->


<!-- Date: Thu Jan 27 20:28:53 2005 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-171&button=yes target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'; align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-171  width='300' align='top'></a></td><td>Fake +++ from data compared to bb2p MC</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared -->


<!-- Date: Mon Jan 31 12:45:13 2005 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-173&button=yes target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'; align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-173  width='300' align='top'></a></td><td>Same as plot as above, but the MC is scaled by 0.8^2 = .64 </td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared -->


<!-- Date: Wed Feb 2 23:13:36 2005 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Wed_Feb__2_2005_231321.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-175  align='top'></a></td><td>rough draft of cdf note on counting fakes</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Aaron Dominguez -->


<!-- Date: Fri Feb 4 16:24:05 2005 -->
<p> 
Here are the H NLO cross sections that Spira made for us: 
</p> 
<a href='http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/~yamaoka/internal/gg_H_maxmix.dat'>gg->Hbb maxmix</a><br> 
<a href='http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/~yamaoka/internal/qq_H_maxmix.dat'>qq->Hbb maxmix</a><br> 
<a href='http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/~yamaoka/internal/gg_H_nomix.dat'>gg->Hbb nomix</a><br> 
<a href='http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/~yamaoka/internal/qq_H_nomix.dat'>qq->Hbb nomix</a><br>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Fri Feb 18 11;19;26 comment by...Jared -->
<pre>oops... there are inclusive production for h and H</pre>
<!-- Comment: Fri Feb 18 11;23;33 comment by...Jared -->
<BR>
<a href='http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/~yamaoka/internal/gg_H_maxmix.dat'>pp->hbb maxmix</a><BR>
<a href='http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/~yamaoka/internal/qq_H_maxmix.dat'>pp->Hbb maxmix</a><BR>
<a href='http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/~yamaoka/internal/gg_H_nomix.dat'>pp->hbb nomix</a><BR>
<a href='http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/~yamaoka/internal/qq_H_nomix.dat'>pp->Hbb nomix</a><BR>
<!-- Date: Fri Feb 4 17:04:19 2005 -->
<center><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-176&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-176' width='300'></a><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-177&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-177' width='300'></a><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-178&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-178' width='300'></a></center>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Fri Feb  4 17;06;44 comment by...Jared -->
<pre>The "predicted" and "observed" distribution used to for fake triple tags.  They don't look too good.</pre>


<!-- Date: Fri Feb 4 17:16:25 2005 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-179&button=yes target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'; align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-179  width='300' align='top'></a></td><td><b>Final triple fakes:</b><br>  
I guess this final plot isn't too bad.</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Fri Feb  4 17;18;00 comment by...Jared -->
<pre>...especially if there is a +/- asymmetry.</pre>


<!-- Date: Tue Feb 15 18:09:35 2005 -->
<center><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-180&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-180' width='300'></a><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-181&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-181' width='300'></a></center>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Tue Feb 15 18;14;27 comment by...Jared -->
<pre>Here are some plots from our fake double tag sample: n(++)=n(+-) - n(--)

we see a similar discrepency below 50Gev as in the triple fakes.  one idea is there is some "splitting" where two jets are tagged based on some sharing of a single displaced vertex. </pre>




<!-- Date: Wed Mar 2 18:46:32 2005 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-182&button=yes target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'; align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-182  width='300' align='top'></a></td><td>mbb (qq->bbA) ma = 90<br> 
Vertex Strategy 0 
</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared -->


<!-- Date: Wed Mar 2 18:47:24 2005 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-184&button=yes target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'; align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-184  width='300' align='top'></a></td><td>SAME<br> 
Vertex Strategy 1</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared -->


<!-- Date: Wed Mar 2 18:48:44 2005 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-185&button=yes target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'; align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-185  width='300' align='top'></a></td><td>SAME 
Vertex Strategy 0 with my attempt to move the z position.</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Wed Mar  2 18;49;30 comment by...Jared -->
<table border=0><td><tr><td bgcolor=#e0e030><pre>It makes things worse.</pre></td></tr></td></table>


<!-- Date: Tue Mar 8 15:57:06 2005 -->
<pre>Using &lt;CLs&gt; as variable to minimize, I got OptiCuts to give us some optimized cuts.  I am using the following for systematic errors: 
  btag asymmetry: 10%  
  btag scale factor: 15% signal, 0% bkg (maybe could be a little higher) 
  jet Et scale: 10% 
  PDF: 5% signal, 0% bkg 
 
The optimized cuts are for Rbb and Mbb simultaneously: 
  Mbb &gt; 57 GeV 
  DeltaRbb &gt; 0.9 
 
The plots of the scans follow, and show some large statistical fluctuations, which don't completely make sense.</pre>
<!-- Author: Aaron -->


<!-- Date: Tue Mar 8 16:02:09 2005 -->
<center><a href='/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Tue_Mar__8_2005_155903.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-187' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Tue_Mar__8_2005_160105.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-189' ></a></center>
<!-- Author: Aaron -->


<!-- Date: Fri Mar 18 11:30:31 2005 -->
<br> 
Link to the D0 4b public <a href= 
'http://www-d0.fnal.gov/Run2Physics/WWW/results/prelim/HIGGS/H08/H08.pdf'>note</a>.
<!-- Author: Jared -->


<!-- Date: Mon Mar 21 17:32:23 2005 -->
<center><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-190&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-190' width='300'></a><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-191&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-191' width='300'></a></center>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Mon Mar 21 17;55;13 comment by...Jared -->
<br>
<b>Double Tag Events</b>
<br>
<br>
Here is a plot of the background fit of double tagged events(left),  and the components that contribute(right).  Note that we used the "Observed Distribution" for the fakes, not the "Predicted Distribution" from the fake rate matrix.  I did this because the number of events counted directly from the "Predicted Distribution" was about %50 smaller than the fitted number.
<br>
<br>
  <table>
      <tr><td><b>Sample</b></td><td><b>Observed (MC)</b></td><td><b>Fitted</b></td><td><b>Fraction of Fitted</b></td></tr>
      <tr><td>Top</td><td>73.9</td><td>74.2</td><td>1.8e-3</td></tr>
      <tr><td>Zbb</td><td>90.2</td><td>89.9</td><td>2.2e-3</td></tr>
      <tr><td>Double Fakes</td><td>12035.9</td><td>12154.4</td><td>3.0e-1</td></tr>
      <tr><td>bb2p</td><td>12717.7</td><td>27020.9</td><td>6.7e-1</td></tr>
      <tr><td>bbbb</td><td>192.41</td><td>408.0</td><td>1.5e-2</td></tr>
</table>


<!-- Comment: Mon Mar 21 19;38;18 comment by...Jared -->
<pre>&lt;b&gt;BUG FIX&lt;/b&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
I found a bug in my code.  The double fakes from the "Observed Distribution" should be 8300.  This is compared to 7700 from the "Predicted Distribution".  Maybe we are missing a background?

 </pre>


<!-- Date: Fri Apr 1 10:50:53 2005 -->
<center><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-192&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-192' width='300'></a><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-193&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-193' width='300'></a></center>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Fri Apr  1 10;52;40 comment by...Jared -->
<pre>Result of fitting the jet multiplicity of double tagged events.</pre>


<!-- Date: Thu Apr 7 20:52:51 2005 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-194&button=yes target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'; align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-194  width='300' align='top'></a></td><td>Mbb for 1/3 of the "BOX"</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Thu Apr  7 20;55;41 comment by...Jared -->
<b><br>
Total Predicted: 203+/-24<br>
Total Observed:  258+/-16<br>
</b>
<br>
A 1.9 sigma difference. 


<!-- Date: Fri Apr 8 10:15:47 2005 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-195&button=yes target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'; align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-195  width='300' align='top'></a></td><td>most resent dt fit</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared -->


<!-- Date: Fri Apr 15 11:01:19 2005 -->
<pre>Attached below are the good run list that used while making fake ntuples and generally while dealing with data.   
 
Also attached is the list of runs that are actually in our data ntuples in the chain file called Chain_ehig_caf.cc.  Note that we are missing a lot of runs from the beginning of the good run list and that there are a few runs where the ratio of nEvt/lumi seems quite low -- like maybe we are missing some files from crashed jobs? 
 
The total lumi in our data ntuples (not counting any errors from missed jobs as described above) is 119 pb^{-1} 
</pre>
<!-- Author: Aaron -->


<!-- Date: Fri Apr 15 11:04:53 2005 -->
<center><a href='/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Fri_Apr_15_2005_110402.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-197' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/mssm_higgs/Fri_Apr_15_2005_110421.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-199' ></a></center>
<!-- Author: Aaron -->


<!-- Date: Thu Apr 21 17:27:38 2005 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-200&button=yes target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'; align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-200  width='300' align='top'></a></td><td>Eta distribution of parton in our bbbb Monte Carlo</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared -->


<!-- Date: Thu Apr 28 18:29:50 2005 -->
<center><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-201&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-201' width='300'></a><a href='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-202&button=yes' target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-202' width='300'></a></center>
<!-- Author: Jared -->
<!-- Comment: Thu Apr 28 18;30;48 comment by...Jared -->
<pre>My attempt to so a side band fit.</pre>


<!-- Date: Tue May 24 10:56:42 2005 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-203&button=yes target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'; align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=mssm_higgs&action=view&page=-203  width='300' align='top'></a></td><td>Signal (hist) normalized to data (points)</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Jared -->