Dimitris Iliadis AUTh, LAPP. On behalf of the ATLAS collaboration. XIIth Quark Confinement and the Hadron Spectrum 29 August 2016, Thessaloniki

Transcription

1 Measurement of the W boson pair production cross section at 13 TeV and confidence intervals on anomalous triple gauge couplings with the ATLAS detector Dimitris Iliadis AUTh, LAPP On behalf of the ATLAS collaboration XIIth Quark Confinement and the Hadron Spectrum 29 August 2016, Thessaloniki

2 Outline Introduction - motivation Experimental signature and phase space definition Background estimation Event yields and control distributions Systematic Uncertainties Cross-section measurements Differential cross-sections atgc confidence intervals Conclusions Dimitrios Iliadis W@13TeV - 2

3 Introduction - motivation Test of pqcd as NNLO calculations become available The diboson processes are an excellent probe of the EW sector The W process has - higher production cross-section than - cleaner signature (experimentally) than WW Run-I: Observed discrepancy (~1.9σ) wrt NLO predictions First measurement at 13 TeV of [Phys. Rev. D 93, (2016)] - charged atgc 95% CL intervals - differential cross-sections (pt, mt W ) q W ± q q q W ± q q q W ± q W ± ± W lνll (LO) Dimitrios Iliadis W@13TeV - 3

4 Experimental signature and analysis phase-space Study the purely leptonic decays of the W, bosons to electrons, muons 3 high-pt, prompt, isolated leptons + missing ET Invariant mass of 2 same flavour, opposite charge leptons consistent with -mass Transverse mass of 3rd lepton and missing ET consistent with W-boson Four distinct final states: eee, eμμ, μee, μμμ Signal: 3 real leptons Fiducial phase-space definition is kept identical to the 8 TeV W publication To compute the detector acceptance, utilise a user-defined algorithm (resonant shapes) that associates the generator-level leptons to the mother bosons - Can compare generators on an equal footing Fiducial Phase-Space m`` m < 10 GeV mt W > 30 GeV leptons:p`t > 15 GeV Wlepton:p`T > 20 GeV ` < 2.5 forallthreeleptons R(`, `) > 0.3 betweenw and leptons R(`, `) > 0.2 between leptons Dimitrios Iliadis W@13TeV - 4

5 Background estimation Reducible: at least 1 fake lepton Irreducible: at least 3 real leptons Data / MC ATLAS Internal -1 L dt = 3.2 fb s = 13 TeV +X, W+X, +γ, W+γ, ttbar, WW Fake leptons: - Heavy flavour decays - Jets misidentified as leptons Data 2015 ± W W/+γ +jets tt tt+v Others Tot. unc. - Photon conversions (electrons) 2 1 Main source of total background (52%) 0 χ 2 / nb points = Estimated using a data-driven method m W T [GeV] (matrix method) 89% purity in the validation region., VVV, t, ttbarv Leptons higher orderfrom corrections these processes, are included for qq (gg) falling processes. outside the detector acceptance Very good agreement or failing between identification data and Monte-Carlo. Main source: (30% of total is well background) controlled. Estimated using MC Elena Yatsenko 8/29 Dimitrios Iliadis W@13TeV - 5

6 Yields and control distributions Observed 2417 W events Only statistical uncertainties shown in the table Expected signal events scaled to match the recent NNLO calculations [arxiv: ] [ATLAS-CONF ] [ATLAS-CONF ] Dimitrios Iliadis W@13TeV - 6

7 Systematic uncertainties Comparable contributions: - statistical - luminosity Dominant systematics: - fake background estimation - electron, muon identification [ATLAS-CONF ] eee µee eµµ µµµ combined Relative uncertainties [%] e energy scale e id. e ciency µ momentum scale µ id. e ciency ET miss and jets Trigger Pileup Misid. leptons background background Other Irr. backgrounds Uncorrelated Total systematics Luminosity Statistics Total Dimitrios Iliadis W@13TeV - 7

8 data2015: Fiducial and total cross-sections Combination of 4 channels using a χ 2 minimisation NLO SM prediction: POWHEG+PYTHIA (μr=mw/2, CT10 PDF) Same deviation (~1.7σ) from NLO prediction as observed in Run-I [arxiv: ] fid. W ±!`0 `` = 63.2 ± 3.2 (stat.) ± 2.6 (sys.) ± 1.5 (lumi.) fb. fid σ NLO,POWHEG+PYTHIA = fb - Fiducial cross-section extrapolated to the total PS (defined by 66 < m < 116 GeV) - Theoretical uncertainties include PDF, scale and parton shower model (AW) tot. W ± = 50.6 ± 2.6 (stat.) ± 2.0 (sys.) ± 0.9 (th.) ± 1.2 (lumi.) pb, tot σ NLO,POWHEG = 42.4 ± 0.3(stat.) ± 0.8(PDF) ± 1.6(scale)pb tot σ NNLO,MATRIX = (pb) Dimitrios Iliadis W@13TeV - 8

9 Charged atgc 95% CL intervals are measured for Test of QCD calculations as NNLO calculations be data2015: Fiducial and total cross-sections total cross section at NNLO QCD) [pb] W σ tot [arxiv: ] ATLAS W lνll ATLAS ATLAS ATLAS D0 CDF s=13 TeV (m ll s=8 TeV (m s=7 TeV (m ll ll GeV), 3.2 fb GeV), 20.3 fb GeV), 4.6 fb -1 s=1.96 TeV (m GeV), 8.6 fb ll -1 s=1.96 TeV (corr. to m GeV), 7.1 fb ll -1 g 1 Ratio to NLO EWK MATRIX processes NNLO, pp W (m GeV) ll are among best places λ NNPDF3.0, µ =µ =(m +m )/2 to ll Extract CT14nlo, atgc µ =µ =m W /2 R limits at 13 TeV for the firs F s [TeV] R F W MCFM NLO, pp W (m MCFM NLO, pp W (m CT14nlo, µ =µ =m W /2 R F ll GeV) GeV) s [TeV] Elena Yatsenk κ -0.5 Dimitrios Iliadis W@13TeV - 9

10 data2015: Charged and energies ratios [arxiv: ] σ fid W + /σ fid W - : fid. W +!`0 `` fid. W!`0 `` = 1.39 ± 0.14 (stat.) ± 0.03 (sys.) SM NLO prediction (POWHEG+PYTHIA): TeV/8TeV: fid.,13 TeV W ± fid.,8tev W ± = 1.80 ± 0.10 (stat.) ± 0.08 (sys.) ± 0.06 (lumi.). SM NLO prediction (POWHEG+PYTHIA): 1.78±0.03 Dimitrios Iliadis W@13TeV - 10

11 Unfolding of the differential distribution Unfold differential distributions to remove detector effects, namely: - Limited acceptance - Imperfect detector efficiency - Finite resolution Response matrix: constructed using signal MC, contains the migrations from generated to reconstructed bins d Agostini s Bayesian iterative arxiv: y = A x x = A 1 y y: Measured distribution of observable x: True distribution More on Silvia Biondi s talk: Experience with using unfolding procedures in ATLAS Dimitrios Iliadis W@13TeV - 11

12 data2015:differential cross-section vs Njets All 4 channels added together Jets with pt > 25 GeV, η <4.5 Bayesian iterative, 3 iterations Dominant systematic: Prior uncertainty [arxiv: ] Dimitrios Iliadis W@13TeV - 12

13 data : Differential cross-section vs pt, mt W All 4 channels added together; pt, mtw differential cross-sections reported for the first time in this energy regime Bayesian iterative: 3 iterations for pt, 2 for mt W ; Dominant systematic: Prior uncertainty [ATLAS-CONF ] [ATLAS-CONF ] Dimitrios Iliadis W@13TeV - 13

14 data : atgc confidence intervals Anomalous WW couplings are expected to increase the yield in the higher bins of differential distributions Two parametrisations used: - An effective Lagrangian describing the WW vertex that includes only CP-conserving terms: Δκ, Δg, λ - An EFT parametrisation (alternatively to the generalised Lagrangian): cwww/λ 2 NP, cb/λ 2 NP, cw/λ 2 NP mt W distribution used to extract limits Events Data / MC [ATLAS-CONF ] ATLAS Preliminary -1 s = 13 TeV, 13.3 fb l ll ( l, l = e or µ ) g g 1 1 =-0.1, =0, κ =0.25, λ =0.1 κ =-0.19, λ =0 Data ± W (corr. to NNLO) Misid. leptons tt+v Others Tot. unc W m T [GeV] Reconstructed signal MC scaled to match recent NNLO QCD calculations Dimitrios Iliadis W@13TeV - 14

15 data : atgc confidence intervals results Extract the 95% CL intervals using a frequentist approach: Feldman-Cousins profile likelihood implementation Λ to extract CL intervals (unitarity constraints: Λcutoff > 10 TeV, form-factor ~ 1) The combination of 8 and 13 TeV data improves the CL intervals by as much as 20% Dataset Coupling Expected Observed 13 TeV 8 and 13 TeV g 1 [-0.017; 0.032] [-0.016; 0.036] apple 1 [-0.18; 0.24] [-0.15; 0.26] [-0.015; 0.014] [-0.016; 0.015] g 1 [-0.014; 0.029] [-0.015; 0.030] apple 1 [-0.15; 0.21] [-0.13; 0.24] [-0.013; 0.012] [-0.014; 0.013] Generalised Lagrangian [ATLAS-CONF ] Dataset Coupling Expected [TeV 2 ] Observed [TeV 2 ] 13 TeV 8 and 13 TeV c W / 2 NP [-4.1; 7.6] [-3.8; 8.6] c B / 2 NP [-261; 193] [-280; 163] c WWW / 2 NP [-3.6; 3.4] [-3.9; 3.7] c W / 2 NP [-3.4; 6.9] [-3.6; 7.3] c B / 2 NP [-221; 166] [-253; 136] c WWW / 2 NP [-3.2; 3.0] [-3.3; 3.2] EFT Most stringent CL intervals in the charged WW vertex! Dimitrios Iliadis W@13TeV - 15

16 Conclusions The W diboson production is an excellent probe of the EWK sector No deviations from the SM prediction observed atgc confidence intervals measured at 13 TeV and combined with 8 TeV. An up to ~20% improvement achieved over previous results NNLO calculations provide ~11% increase in total cross-section and describe much better the LHC data Theorists need to compete with the high experimental precision in the measurements On the experimental side, we need to improve on systematic uncertainties to profit from the high statistics One of the most highlighted precision measurements at ICHEP2016! Dimitrios Iliadis W@13TeV - 16

17 Back up Dimitrios Iliadis - 17

18 Object selection Electrons Selection Baseline W pt > 7 GeV Electron object quality ηcluster < 2.47, η < 2.5 LooseLH + BLayer identification σ(d0 BL ) < 5 Δz0 BL sinθ < 0.5 mm LooseTrackOnly isolation e-μ and e-e overlap removal e-jet Overlap Removal pt > 15 GeV Exclude 1.37 < ηcluster < 1.52 Muons Selection Baseline W pt > 7 GeV η < 2.5 Loose quality σ(d0 BL ) < 3 Δz0 BL sinθ < 0.5 mm LooseTrackOnly isolation μ-jet Overlap Removal pt > 15 GeV Medium quality Gradient Loose isolation MediumLH identification Gradient Loose isolation pt > 20 GeV pt > 20 GeV TightLH identification Gradient isolation Jets AntiKt4EMTopoJets MET Track soft term Hard term: baseline leptons pt > 25 GeV η < 4.5 JVT > 0.64, for jets with pt < 50 GeV and η < 2.4 Calo based MET with JVT cut Dimitrios Iliadis W@13TeV - 18

19 Unfolding Njet uncertainties Dimitrios Iliadis - 19

20 Unfolding Njets prior uncertainty Perform nominal unfolding using Powheg+Pythia; Extract reweighing factors by comparing the unfolded data (result of step 1) distribution to the MC truth; The Powheg+Pythia MC W signal sample is reweighed with the factors (obtained from step 2); A reweighed response matrix is obtained (using the reweighed MC from step 3) and the unfolding procedure is repeated, with the role of data played by the reconstructed MC, under the no-background hypothesis (similar to a simple MC closure test); By comparing the unfolded reconstructed distribution (result of step 4) to the initial MC truth (step 1), the uncertainty per bin is estimated; Dimitrios Iliadis W@13TeV - 20