# Presentation: 038347

## tt→+jets Analysis Q&A - Blessing talk

**Giorgio Cortiana**,
- University of Padova and INFN

**Outline:**
** ****Brief analysis overview**
*** ******Question & Answers***
*** ******To bless material***

***CDF-7689***

- Main changes w.r.t previous results:
- Trigger Systs.
- SecVtx SF systs.
- Background systs.

## Brief analysis overview

**Brief analysis overview**

**Datasets and trigger:**
**TOP_MULTI_JET** ***dataset*** **(gset0d)** **up to Aug 2004: ****311 pb****-1****.**
-  **L1****:** **≥1 ****cal. tower with E****T****≥10 GeV; **
**  ****L2****: ****≥4 ****cal. clusters with E****T**** ≥ 15 GeV, ********E****T**** ≥ 125 GeV;**
**  ****L3****: ****≥4 ****jets, R=0.4, E****T**** ≥10 GeV**
**MC**** : (167 fb****-1****), ****Pythia ttbar**** ****(ttopel)****, M****top**** = 178 GeV**

**MET+jets analysis**
**ttbar→bl******** bbarjj**

**Method-I approach**
**+**
**ad hoc Kinematical selection**

***Offline version: ******5.3.3_nt5***
***Jet Corrs: ******jetCorr04b***

***Good Run List: ******v7.0 (1,1,4,1)***

**3-d**** ****(E****T****, N****TRK****, Met****PRJ****)**** ****Positive Tagging Matrix****  constructed on ****3 (E****T****L5****>15GeV, |********|<2.0)-jet events****.**

**The kinematical selection is optimized in order to ****minimize the relative statistical error on xsec**** using both the ****expected amount of tags for inclusive ttbar and background**** (from matrix)**

** ****Pre-Tag: S/N = 0.18     Post-Tag: S/N = 1.14**

## - Questions & Answers -

## Q: Raw jet energy scale affects the trigger efficiency. This should be taken into account. How much does the trigger efficiency change using ±1 jet energy scale systs?

**Addendum:**** we re-evaluated the trigger efficiency using turn-on curves w.r.t the L5-corrected jet E****T****. This drops the systematics dependence of the raw jet energy scale difference between Monte Carlo and data. **
**The systs is reduced from 17.8 % to 14.8 %. **
**A:**** Our trigger efficiency is calculated using TRIGSIM++, **
**not by means of turn-on curves. Anyway we can **
**evaluate ****the effects of JES systs**** using turn-on curves **
**as a function of ****L5-cor E****T****(0,±1******** syts)**** on the efficiency: **

** ****The systematics on the trigger simulation is one of the main sources of uncertainty. We evaluated it by comparing trigger turn-on curves as a function of the jet raw-E****T ****for ttbar and Tower-10 data. **

| Standard JES | 78.246 % |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| +1 JES | 77.949 % |  |
| -1 JES | 78.636 % |  |
| /standard |  | 0.5 % |

**The JES scale effect is evaluated over a sub-class of inclusive MC events before any kinematical selection in which the 4****th**** jet is matched to the 4****th**** L2 cluster.**
**This is why the efficiency is higher   (78.2 vs 63.3%)**

## Q: You quote a systematic error on the SF to be 5.5%. Usually people quote 6.6 %. Do you understand the reason why?

**Addendum and Answer:**** we investigated and found that we were not properly accounting  for the c-quark SF error: ****we were assuming the same SF error for b-quark and c-quark instead of a double error for charm. We corrected for this:**
**b-tagging efficiency changes from 79.08 ± 0.18 to 78.89 ± 0.18;**
**It’s a 0.2 % effect (within the stats), ****No change in the xsec central value.**
**But has a ****sizable effect on the b-tagging systematics making it changing**
**from 5.5% to 5.8 %.**

** ****The systematics on the SecVtx B-tagging is evaluated using ±1******** Scale Factor variation effect on ttbar inclusive events. **

**When we write ********ave****tag**** **
**Read n****ave****tag**

## Q: The right figure of merit here is not t-tbar events vs. MJ events, but something like fraction of t-tbar events compared to the avg. tag rate. A small fraction of t-tbar events with a tagging rate of 50% can still bias the apparent tag rate if the true tag rate is very small in the data.

**Q: ****The right figure of merit here is not t-tbar events vs. MJ events, but something like fraction of t-tbar events compared to the avg. tag rate. A small fraction of t-tbar events with a tagging rate of 50% can still bias the apparent tag rate if the true tag rate is very small in the data.**

**A: ****We produced the following table in which the average tagging rate are shown together with the number of events.**** **
**The ttbar fraction considering the relative tagging efficiency is still low and found to be 2x10****-4****.**

## Q: you should demonstrate that this set of variables is sufficient by plotting predicted/observed vs. some other variables (e.g. sum Et, missing Et, Run number, eta, phi,...). If those do not agree well, then you have to worry about different spectral shapes between your matrix sample and the data you apply it to.

**Q: ****you should demonstrate that this set of variables is sufficient by plotting predicted/observed vs. some other variables (e.g. sum Et, missing Et, Run number, eta, phi,...). If those do not agree well, then you have to worry about different spectral shapes between your matrix sample and the data you apply it to.**

**A: ****We produced some plots showing the agreement between observed ****kinematical distributions for tagged events and the ones predicted from the matrix,**** in the sample of data with ****Njet ≥4 before kinematical selection.**

***The log scale was required by e-mail yesterday after posting the Q&A page. We also changed the x-axis ranges in order to highlight distribution tails.***

## Slide 8

## Slide 9

## Q: Can you gain any statistical power by calculating the cross section by Njet bin and then combining? 

**A:**** Probably we could gain something from the statistical point of view in calculating the cross-section by N****jet**** bin. **
**Anyway given that even doing that the systematical uncertainty exceed the statistical one we think the improvement will be poor. **
**Moreover, we found that the systematic due to the jet energy correction are so low (1.5%) because we are sitting over the trigger requirement (N****jet****≥4). We also found that for instance for a kinematical selection asking for N****jet****≥5 these systematics increase to the value of 7.6%. **
**For this reason a cross section measurement made by jet multiplicity will have to cope with higher systematics that as I already mentioned will come from JES and the fix requirement in the number of jets.**

**Q:**** How many times does SecVtX tag a ********-lepton?**

**A:**** Before kinematical selection in tau+jets exclusive ttbar decays 3% of the tags comes from tagged-taus.**
**In the final sample we end up with 127 tags, ~60 from ttbar out of which ~20 are from tau+jets decay. This means 0.6 signal tags in the final sample are due to b-tagged taus.**

## Q: Does really Aplanarity do nothing?

**A:**** ****We performed by-hand an optimization study on aplanarity after having Imposed the cuts defining our selection. **

** ****The kinematical selection uses missing E****T**** significance and min********(MET,jet). The optimization  procedure founds not necessary a cut on Aplanarity.**

***The distribution for ******background****** is ******obtained from tagging matrix****** prediction while the one for the ******signal ******from****** tagged inclusive ttbar events.**** *

## Q: You should extend the control plot up to 8jets, especially as there appears to be a downward trend from 4-7 jets.  

**A:**** ****We did not look at the 8-jet bin before:**** the agreement is worst in this bin compared to the others.  ****The control region that appear to create some problems is the one at high MET**
**significance: ****met sig > 3 and min******** < 0.3****.**
**Even if**** ****the statistics of the 8-jet bin is very poor: 6 obs vs 12.8**** ****exp****, ****we decided to investigate a bit more on this in order to better understand this behavior.**

** ****The positive tagging matrix predictions are checked in control samples depleted of signal obtained from multijet data.**

** ****data before kinematical selection**
** ****data w/ met sig < 3 and min******** > 0.3 **
** ****data w/ met sig > 3 and min******** < 0.3**

**We ****further checked the matrix prediction**** in several other ****exclusive control regions...**

## The obs/exp ratio is found to be consistently flat  over all CRs except: 

**CR-4 where the slope is not consistent to zero.**

**Note that ****the control region mets>3.0;dphi<0.3 is the sum of CR-4, CR-5.**

- CR 0

- CR 1

- CR 3

- CR 2

- CR 4

- CR 5

**Moreover, extrapolating from CR-3 to CR-1 slopes do not change.**

## Data suggests that the trend that was observed was mainly driven by a statistical fluctuation occurred in CR-4. 

**Even if it is clear that no real pathologies are found in the matrix predictions,**** **
**we decided to be very conservative and to assign a systematics on the background accounting for the  decreasing trend observed in region mets>3.0 and min********<0.3. **
**We took as systematics half of the difference between the fit function at the extreme of 3 and 8 jets. **

**Furthermore ****the plots demonstrate**** that ****in the regions near the signal zone****, in particular in Region-1 and Region-5**** the ****matrix prediction are under control**** expecially in the bins, 4-,5- and 6-jet, where we expect the signal to come in.**** **

**We increased the syst err. from 10% to 16%. **

## Q: This argument would be a little stronger if you contrasted the fits with fits that include background only. By eye it looks like you can make a convincing case for needing the t-tbar component.

** ****We used 2-c fits to kinematical distributions to check the ttbar  fraction found from tag counting method.**

**We have performed the fits to data kinematical distributions dropping the ttbar component. **
**As the ************ of the fits indicate ****there is the need to add the signal component in order to describe the tagged data behavior. **

## Q: The little iterative correction has an effect on your statistical uncertainty that I don't think you've included. The point is that the statistical fluctuations on your signal come in twice: Once in S and a second time in B because of the correction. 

** ****We use an iterative procedure to correct the matrix predicted background tags for the ttbar presence in the pre-tagging sample.**

**As suggested, we used PEs in which varied randomly the number of Obs tags together with the other quantities.**** **
**The procedure accounts for the statistical part only of the cross section uncertainty.**** **

**As a results the stat uncertainty need to be increased  from 1.1 pb to 1.2 pb. **

## - To Bless Material -

## Clean up selection:

** ****Tight leptons (e/********) veto**** (no overlap w/ other L+J top analyses)**
** ****Trigger requirement simulation**** (for MC)**
** ****Vertex requirements****:**
** ****|Z****vert****| < 60 cm**
**  ****|Z****vert****jet**** – Z****pvert****| < 5 cm**
**  ****N****vertices****(Q>12) ≥1**

## Tagging Rates and matrix construction related table/Figs.

## before tagging

- after tagging

## Slide 21

## Tagging matrix control checks - 1

## Tagging matrix control checks - 2

## assume 6.1 pb

**Monte Carlo Tags contribution per each jet multiplicity**

*assume 6.1 pb*
*xs for MC*

## 2-c Fits to kinematical distributions of tagged data

## Systematics summary table

## ttbar = 5.9 ± 1.2 (stat)          (syst) pb

******ttbar**** = 5.9 ± 1.2 (stat)          (syst) pb**
**         ****= 5.9         pb.**

**+1.5**
**- 1.2**

**+1.9**
**- 1.7**

## Cross section measurement vs Top mass.

## - Backup Material -

## More details on Met projection distribution in ttbar events.

**More details on Met projection distribution in ttbar events.**

## Trigger Systematic effect:

**CDF-7473**

**Need to evaluate related systematic:**
**comparing trigger turn-on curve**** (as a function of some offline variable) ****as returned by the ****simulation ****and as measured from ****Tower 10 data ****(same L1 as TOP_MULTI_JET)****. **
**The mismatch between turn-on curve allows to quantify the systematic effect at ****14.8%**

**Trigger efficiency on signal events is determined using TRIGSIM++. **

**L5 E****t****4th**

**L5 E****t****4th**

- ttbar
- after kin sel

- tower - 10
- data

**Note:**** ****the 4****th**** offline L5 jet is matched with the 4****th**** L2 cluster within R=0.4 in order to preserve energy hierarchy.**

**Trigger Systematic effect:**

## Data suggests that the trend that was observed was mainly driven by a statistical fluctuation in CR-4. 

**Data suggests that the trend that was observed was mainly driven by a statistical fluctuation in CR-4. **

**Initially we quoted 10% systs looking at the behavior in control sample between 3 and 7 jets.**
**Even including the 8-jet point folding the number of observed tags in the signal region with the observed trend in the region mets>3.0 and min********<0.3 we get a systs of 3.8%. **
**10% is still well conservative.**

**Furthermore ****the plots demonstrate**** that ****in the regions near the signal zone****, in particular in Region-1 and Region-5**** the ****matrix prediction are under control**** expecially in the bins, 4-,5- and 6-jet, where we expect the signal to come in.**** **

## Systematics summary table

## assume 6.1 pb

**Number of tags distribution in the signal region**

**Monte Carlo Tags contribution per each jet multiplicity**

*assume 6.1 pb*
*xs for MC*

## Slide 35

## ttbar = 5.9 ± 1.2 (stat)          (syst) pb

******ttbar**** = 5.9 ± 1.2 (stat)          (syst) pb**
**         ****= 5.9         pb.**

**+1.4**
**- 1.0**

**+1.8**
**- 1.6**

## Cross section measurement vs Top mass.

## Slide 38

## Slide 39

## Pre-tag iterative top subtraction

**Pre-tag iterative top subtraction**

**The final sample kin sel + ≥1 tag consists of ****106 events**** for a total of ****N****obs**** = 127**** positive tagged jets.**
**From tagging matrix prediction we expect**** N****exp**** = 67.4 ±7.2 ****tags**** **
**We need to correct the tagging matrix prediction in order to account for the ttbar presence in the pre-tagging sample by using an iterative method:**

**The procedure stops when |N****exp****’ –N****exp****| < 1% .**
**10.0 tags out of 67.4 are attributed in this way to the ttbar presence in the pre-tagging sample. **
**N****exp****’ = 57.4 ± 10.8**** is the corrected background amount to be used for a cross section measurement.**

## More on 2-c fits

## Cross Section vs Mtop

## Hints on bkg sample composition

**We can do more:**** ****we have the background shapes**** extracted from the tagging matrix information, ****we can fit them to the sum of two Alpgen Monte Carlo templates**** for the processes we expect to populate our signal region.**
** ****Wbb+2P**
** ****bb+4P**

***After kin sel + ≥1 tag data:****** 50% top + ~21% bb + ******~*** ***29% Wbb***

***From bkg fits:***** **
**we found a bb fraction: **

**F****bbar**** ~ 42%**