2018 CRs Nick Amin September 2, 2018 Overview (1) Previously - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

2018 CRs

Nick Amin September 2, 2018

⚫ Previously looked at 2017 CRs with an updated fake rate ⚫ Have ntupled the latest golden JSON of 2018 data (35.5fb-1), so repeat the CR

plotting with 2018 comparing against 2017 MC

⚫ Using 2017 parameters for 2018 (JECs, effective areas, ID/Iso, b-tag WP

, scale factors, nmiss==0, fake rates, flip rates) except pile up reweighting is modified to scale 2017 MC to 2018 PU distribution

⚫ Isolated trigger strategy courtesy of Laurent’s slides here

• Explicitly, the babymaker uses these
• 2018 is essentially same as 2017, and I’ve checked with brilcalc the

effective luminosity for the ee,e𝜈,𝜈𝜈 paths each match the golden json lumi

⚫ Some caveats

• Small fraction of corrupt/tail jobs, which should total around half a %.

Eventually I will include these.

• No ISR reweighting for 2018

Overview (1)

2

⚫ Essentially copying the format of 2017 CR slides (from here), so they should be flippable ⚫ Several combinations of years

• 2017 (35.5fb-1): http://uaf-10.t2.ucsd.edu/~namin/dump/plots/plots_crs2017_Sep2/
• 2018 (41.5fb-1): http://uaf-10.t2.ucsd.edu/~namin/dump/plots/plots_crs2018_Sep2/
• 2017+2018 (77.1fb-1): http://uaf-10.t2.ucsd.edu/~namin/dump/plots/plots_crs20172018_Sep2/
• 2016+2017+2018 (112.9fb-1): http://uaf-10.t2.ucsd.edu/~namin/dump/plots/plots_crsrun2_Sep2/
• 2018 compared to 2017 data only: http://uaf-10.t2.ucsd.edu/~namin/dump/plots/

plots_crcomparedata20172018_Sep2/

⚫ Again, careful since there’s thousands of plots in total (~150MB) ⚫ CRs, search string is lowercase of below items

• BR
• OSLOOSE (Z-dominated)
• OS (tt̅-dominated)
• CRZ
• CRW
• HTNB1 (fake-enriched, data-driven)
• HTNB1 (fake-enriched, MC truth-fakes from tt̅)

⚫ I’ll go through the same CR plots as before, and then show some interesting features/disagreements

between the years at the end

Overview (2)

3

OSLOOSE (Z-dominated)

4

OS (tt̅-dominated)

5

⚫ Selections: pT>25/20, OS pair, MET>50, Njets≥2, HT>300 ⚫ Some disagreement in e𝜈 normalization ⚫ A bit of a normalization discrepancy here

HTNB1 (fake-dominated)

6

else we get an over-estimate

HTNB1MC (fake-dominated)

7

⚫ Selections: pT>25/20, SS pair, MET>50, Njets≥2, Nbtags==1, no HT>300 ⚫ This slide has truth-matched MC fakes from tt̅ (flip with previous slide)

CRW

8

⚫ pT>25/20, SS pair, MET>50, 2≤Njets≤5, Nbtags==2, HT>300, Nleps==2 ⚫ Data/MC = 1.45 ± 0.16 (no syst)

CRZ

9

⚫ pT>25/20/20, SS Z-veto, MET>50, Njets≥2, Nbtags≥2, HT>300 ⚫ Data/MC = 1.22 ± 0.26 (no syst)

BR (1)

10

⚫ pT>25/20(/20), SS, MET>50, Njets≥2, Nbtags≥2, HT>300 ⚫ Data/MC = 1.56 ± 0.14 (no syst)

BR (2)

11

• ttW needs to be scaled up?
• Slide 8 shows ttW would need to be scaled up by a factor of ~2, which would essentially kill this excess
• Wouldn’t charge information help constrain ttW more in the fit?

Misc comparisons

12

⚫ Check electron 𝜚 for the fake-dominated CR

• Fake rate maps are the same for 2017 and 2018, so we can get relative loose-not-tight yields here
• HEM gap — 𝜃 in [-3,-1.3], 𝜚 in [-1.57,-0.87]
• Doesn’t seem like there’s a noticeable deviation in that region

Misc checks (1)

13 2017 2018

⚫ The Njet==4 bin is pretty high all years in CRW

• For bottom right ("run2"), data/MC is 1.51±0.14 in that bin → if we only allow ttW

to float, this would give a ttW SF of ~2.2

Misc discrepancies (1)

14 2017 2018 2016 + 2017 + 2018 2017 + 2018

⚫ Lepton 𝜚 for electrons in the Z-dominated OS region has very inefficient

spots in 2018

• Pixel issue isn’t worse, so is this an artifact of using the same ID/Iso WPs

as in 2017?

Misc discrepancies (2)

15 2017 2018

⚫ As mentioned on slide 11, lepton charge in baseline region has

large excess in positive bin. Compare it with 2017 explicitly…

⚫ Is the disagreement just stats?

Misc discrepancies (3)

16

⚫ 2018 data similar to 2017 ⚫ Discrepancy with

• electron 𝜚 between the two years
• ttW normalization

Summary

17

Backup

18