Reconstruction of electrons at the CMS experiment

S. Bafoni, C. Charlot, M. Dalchenko

Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet Ecole Polytechnique

M. Dalchenko (LLR)

02/09/2012

1 / 23

What is CMS?
CMS - Compact Muon Solenoid

M. Dalchenko (LLR)

02/09/2012

2 / 23

What is CMS?-II
Transverse view of the CMS

M. Dalchenko (LLR)

02/09/2012

3 / 23

Why do we need precise electron reconstruction?

Higgs boson branching ratios

M. Dalchenko (LLR)

02/09/2012

4 / 23

Reconstruction algorithms
There are two reconstruction algorithms: ECAL-driven (e/g) Particle Flow - Could bring additional information used for improving

M. Dalchenko (LLR)

02/09/2012

5 / 23

ECAL-driven algorithm (revisited)

Old electrons classication

golden:We need to classify different electrons patterns for better track momenta evaluation. - a supercluster formed by a single cluster, - a ratio E/p > 0.9, - a measured brem fraction fbrem < 0.5; big brem: - a supercluster formed by a single cluster, - a ratio E/p > 0.9, - a measured bremsstrahlung fraction fbrem > 0.5; showering: - a super-cluster formed by a single cluster not falling in the golden or big brem classes, or a super-cluster formed by several sub-clusters. In addition, crack electrons are dened as electrons whose superclusters starting crystal is close to an boundary between ECAL barrel modules, or close to an boundary betwen the ECAL barrel and ECAL endcaps.

Distribution of the different populations of the electrons. MC electron gun at in pT from 2 to 100 GeV .

The integrated fractions of reconstructed electrons in the different classes are as follows: 29.8% (golden), 12.2% (big brem), 53.3% (showering) and 4.7% (cracks).

M. Dalchenko (LLR)

02/09/2012

6 / 23

Combination of the ECAL-driven and PF approaches

PF brem fraction from the ECAL

PF Fbrem = PF SuperCluster Energy Electron Cluster Energy PF SuperCluster Energy

Golden electrons

Big Brem electrons

Showering electrons M. Dalchenko (LLR)

Showering electrons with 1 subcluster 02/09/2012 7 / 23

Combination of the ECAL-driven and PF approaches

PF brem fraction vs tracker brem fraction

Golden electrons

Big Brem electrons

Showering electrons

Showering electrons with 1 subcluster

M. Dalchenko (LLR)

02/09/2012

8 / 23

Combination of the ECAL-driven and PF approaches

PF brem fraction vs tracker brem fraction, denition of the regions

Region 1:
PF Fbrem 0.15

Region 2:
PF tracker Fbrem Fbrem 0.15

Region 3:
rest part

Barrel 67.16% Endcap 63.28%

Barrel 4.93% Endcap 5.38%

Barrel 27.91% Endcap 31.34%

M. Dalchenko (LLR)

02/09/2012

9 / 23

Combination of the ECAL-driven and PF approaches

Barrel electrons

Endcap electrons

Region 1: 99.39% Region 2: 0.18% Region 3: 0.43%

Region 1: 83.91% Region 2: 3.35% Region 3: 12.74%

The distributions are different for these regions Region 2 electrons have bad momentum estimation
M. Dalchenko (LLR) 02/09/2012 10 / 23

Combination of the ECAL-driven and PF approaches

Barrel electrons

Endcap electrons

Region 1: 96.26% Region 2: 0.38% Region 3: 3.36%

Region 1: 81.79% Region 2: 1.37% Region 3: 16.84%

The distributions are different for these regions Region 2 electrons have bad momentum estimation
M. Dalchenko (LLR) 02/09/2012 11 / 23

Combination of the ECAL-driven and PF approaches

Barrel electrons

Endcap electrons

Region 1: 40.84% Region 2: 8.87% Region 3: 50.29%

Region 1: 51% Region 2: 7.52% Region 3: 41.48%

The distributions are different for these regions Region 2 electrons have bad momentum estimation
M. Dalchenko (LLR) 02/09/2012 12 / 23

Combination of the ECAL-driven and PF approaches

Barrel electrons

Endcap electrons

Region 1: 97.3% Region 2: 0.06% Region 3: 2.64%

Region 1: 87.43% Region 2: 0.14% Region 3: 12.43%

The distributions are different for these regions Region 2 electrons have bad momentum estimation
M. Dalchenko (LLR) 02/09/2012 13 / 23

Combination of the ECAL-driven and PF approaches

Barrel electrons

Endcap electrons

Region 1: 68.86% Region 2: 4.69% Region 3: 26.45%

Region 1: 38.45% Region 2: 7.12% Region 54.43:%

The distributions are different for these regions Region 2 electrons have bad momentum estimation
M. Dalchenko (LLR) 02/09/2012 14 / 23

Combination of the ECAL-driven and PF approaches

Sub-summary

We have additional variable - Calorimetric brem fraction - which allows us to pick out the Bad Track electrons
tracker PF The denition of different regions in (Fbrem , Fbrem ) plane are the same for the barrel and endcap electrons So, we can propose new classication:

Cracks Bad Track Golden Big Brem Showering (multicluster)

Showering singlecluster are redistributed between Golden and Big Brem corresponding to the usual fbrem criteria. golden 63% of showering singlecluster bb 37% of showering singlecluster

M. Dalchenko (LLR)

02/09/2012

15 / 23

Combination of the ECAL-driven and PF approaches

Inuence of the showering singlecluster electrons redistribution (barrel)

e_over_eTrue_vs_eTrue_0
0.18 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
e_over_eTrue_vs_eTrue_0_py

old Golden712013 Entries new Underflow Golden

Mean RMS 0.9962 0.02243 0

e_over_eTrue_vs_eTrue_1
0.18 0.16

old Big Brem Entries 169282

Mean 0.9957

e_over_eTrue_vs_eTrue_1_py

new RMS Brem Big 0.02443 Underflow 0

Golden electrons

Big Brem electrons

e_over_eTrue_vs_eTrue_3

e_over_eTrue_vs_eTrue_3_py

e_over_eTrue_vs_eTrue_BT
0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

e_over_eTrue_vs_eTrue_BT_py

old Showering Entries 1177290

Mean 0.993 0.05517 new RMS Showering Underflow 0

0.07018 BadRMS Track 0 Underflow

Entries Mean

112354 1.001

0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01

2.5

0 0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Bad Track electrons

Showering electrons

M. Dalchenko (LLR)

02/09/2012

16 / 23

Combination of the ECAL-driven and PF approaches

Inuence of the showering singlecluster electrons redistribution (barrel) - 2

p_over_pTrue_vs_pTrue_0
p_over_pTrue_vs_pTrue_0_py

old Golden Entries

p_over_pTrue_vs_pTrue_1

Mean

712013 0.9691

old Big Brem Entries 169282

Mean 0.9389

p_over_pTrue_vs_pTrue_1_py

RMS 0.1068 p_over_pTrue_vs_pTrue_0 Underflow 0

0.03 0.025

new RMS Brem Big 0.1563 Underflow 0

0.05

0.04 0.02 0.03 0.015 0.02 0.01 0.005 0 0

0.01

0 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

0.5

1.5

2.5

Golden electrons

Big Brem electrons

p_over_pTrue_vs_pTrue_BT
0.008 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

p_over_pTrue_vs_pTrue_BT_py

Entries 112354 Mean 0.4491 RMS 0.2702 Underflow 0

p_over_pTrue_vs_pTrue_3
0.024 0.022 0.02 0.018 0.016 0.014 0.012 0.01 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0 0

p_over_pTrue_vs_pTrue_3_py

new Entries 1085507 Showering

Mean 0.915 RMS 0.2185 old Showering 0 Underflow

2.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

Bad Track electrons

Showering electrons

M. Dalchenko (LLR)

02/09/2012

17 / 23

Combination of the ECAL-driven and PF approaches

Inuence of the showering singlecluster electrons redistribution (endcap)

e_over_eTrue_vs_eTrue_0
0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 0.02 0.01 0 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
e_over_eTrue_vs_eTrue_0_py

old Golden Entries 389495

Mean 1.003

e_over_eTrue_vs_eTrue_1
0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04

e_over_eTrue_vs_eTrue_1_py

new RMS 0.0406 Golden

Entries 294015 Mean 0.9887 old Big Brem RMS 0.05065

new Big Brem

Golden electrons

Big Brem electrons

e_over_eTrue_vs_eTrue_BT

e_over_eTrue_vs_eTrue_BT_py

e_over_eTrue_vs_eTrue_3
0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03

e_over_eTrue_vs_eTrue_3_py

Entries 74672 Mean 0.9881 RMS 0.08805

Entries 592572 Mean 0.9849 old 0.07213 RMS Showering

new Showering

0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.01 0.005 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 0.02

Bad Track electrons

Showering electrons

M. Dalchenko (LLR)

02/09/2012

18 / 23

Combination of the ECAL-driven and PF approaches

Inuence of the showering singlecluster electrons redistribution (endcap) - 2

p_over_pTrue_vs_pTrue_0
0.012 0.01 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.002 0.002 0 0 0 0
p_over_pTrue_vs_pTrue_0_py

Entries 413409 Mean 0.8215 old RMS Golden 0.2697

new Golden

p_over_pTrue_vs_pTrue_1
0.01

old Big Brem Entries 246137

Mean

p_over_pTrue_vs_pTrue_1_py

0.73

new RMS Brem Big 0.2742

0.008

0.006

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

0.5

1.5

2.5

Golden electrons

Big Brem electrons

p_over_pTrue_vs_pTrue_BT

p_over_pTrue_vs_pTrue_BT_py

p_over_pTrue_vs_pTrue_3
0.009 0.008 0.007

p_over_pTrue_vs_pTrue_3_py

Entries 74672 Mean 0.3698 RMS 0.2686

new Entries 592572 Showering

Mean 0.7889 RMS 0.321 old Showering

0.01

0.008

0.006 0.005

0.006 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.001 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Bad Track electrons

Showering electrons

M. Dalchenko (LLR)

02/09/2012

19 / 23

Combination of the ECAL-driven and PF approaches

Energy resolution (barrel)

effRMS/ETrue 0.1
Barrel electrons. old classification OLD Golden

effRMS/Etrue

0.1

Energy resolution, new classification NEW Golden NEW BigBrem New Showering New Cracks Bad Track

0.08

OLD Big Brem OLD Showering

0.08

0.06

OLD Cracks

0.06

0.04

0.04

0.02

0.02

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 E, GeV

20

40

60

80

100 E, GeV

Tracker resolution (barrel)

true

0.3

Tracker resolution, new classification NEW Golden NEW Big Brem NEW Showering NEW Cracks Bad Track

effRMS/p

true

0.1

0.08

effRMS/p
Tracker resolution, old classification OLD, Golden OLD, Big Brem OLD, Showering OLD, Cracks

0.25

0.2
0.06

0.15
0.04

0.1

0.02

0.05
80 100 E, GeV

0 0

20

40

60

20

40

60

80

100 E, GeV

M. Dalchenko (LLR)

02/09/2012

20 / 23

Combination of the ECAL-driven and PF approaches

Energy resolution (endcap)

Energy resolution, old classification, ENDCAP

Energy resolution, new classification, ENDCAP NEW Golden

effRMS/Etrue

OLD Golden

effRMS/Etrue

0.3

0.3

NEW Big Brem NEW Showering NEW Cracks Bad Track

OLD Big Brem

0.25

OLD Showering

0.25

OLD Cracks

0.2

0.2

0.15

0.15

0.1

0.1

0.05

0.05

0 0

20

40

60

80

100 E, GeV

0 0

20

40

60

80

100 E, GeV

Tracker resolution (endcap)

Tracker resolution, new classification ENDCAP NEW Golden

true

Tracker resolution, old classification, ENDCAP

0.5

NEW Big Brem NEW Showering NEW Cracks

effRMS/p

true

0.5

OLD Golden OLD Big Brem OLD Showering

effRMS/p

0.4

Bad Track

0.4
OLD Cracks

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1
20 40 60 80 100 E, GeV

0 0

0 0

20

40

60

80

100 E, GeV

M. Dalchenko (LLR)

02/09/2012

21 / 23

Combination of the ECAL-driven and PF approaches

Combined resolution

Combined resolution, new classification

effRMS/Etrue

0.1

Golden

Big Brem

0.08

Showering

Cracks

0.06

Bad Track

0.04

0.02

0 0

20

40

60

80

100 E, GeV

M. Dalchenko (LLR)

02/09/2012

22 / 23

Combination of the ECAL-driven and PF approaches

Summary

We need supercluster structure information available in data Peak around 1 in p/ptrue distribution should be additionally studied Bad Track denition criteria should be claried E-p combination should be revisited

M. Dalchenko (LLR)

02/09/2012

23 / 23