1 study of top-antitop production with the atlas detector at the lhc dpg frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007...

1
Addition of Acetylperoxyl to 2,3-Dimethyl-2-Butene The first example of addition of oxygen centred radicals to alkenes to be investigated was for acetylperoxyl addition. eg.1 The variation of rate of reaction with the ionisation energy of the alkene identified the reaction as an electrophilic addition. 1 Activation Energy vs. Radical Electonegativity With this measurement, Arrhenius parameters are now available for a wide range of peroxyl radicals attacking the one alkene. 1-3 The difference in electronegativity between the radical and the alkene can be considered to control the rate of the addition. References (1) Ruiz Diaz, R.; Selby, K.; Waddington, D. J. J. Chem. Soc. Perkin Trans. 2 1977, 360. (2) Baldwin, R. R.; Stout, D. R.; Walker, R. W. J. Chem. Soc Faraday Trans. 1 1984, 80, 3481. (3) Stark, M. S. J. Phys. Chem. 1997, 101, 8296. (4) Wayne, R. P. et al. Atmos. Environ. 1991, 25A, 1. Addition of Acetylperoxyl to Dienes To examine how radical addition to dienes differs from addition to unsubstituted mono-alkenes, Arrhenius parameters for the reaction of acetylperoxyl radicals with three conjugated and one unconjugated diene were determined (Table 1). Appropriate Structure Activity Relationships for Radical Addition to Alkenes Consideration of just the ionisation energy of the alkene can be misleading. The value for 1,3-butadiene is lower than, for example, that for propene. However, the electron affinity of 1,3-butadiene is also lower than that of propene, so the electronegativities for both are comparable. Epoxidation of 2,3-Dimethyl-2-Butene, Conjugated Dienes and 1,5-Hexadiene by Acetylperoxyl Radicals J. R. Lindsay Smith, D. M. S. Smith, M. S. Stark and D. J. Waddington Department of Chemistry University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK However, the most polar of this class of reaction, the addition of acetylperoxyl to 2,3- dimethyl-2-butene has not previously been examined. This reaction was studied here over the temperature range 393 to 433 K, and Arrhenius parameters found (Table 1). Transition State Activation Energy vs. Alkene Ionisation Energy This work on 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene now extends the reactions investigated to cover alkenes with ionisation energies ranging from 8.3 to 9.7 eV. The measured barrier for this reaction conforms with the correlation between alkene ionisation energy and the activation energy for addition of acetlyperoxyl to alkenes previously found. 1 Transition State for Acetylperoxyl Addition to 1,3-Butadiene Title: unihard Creator: UNIRAS 6V4 - HPOSTEPS Preview: This EPS picture was not saved with a preview included in it. Comment: This EPS picture will print to a PostScript printer, but not to other types of printers. Activation Energy vs. Charge Transfer Energy The activation energy for addition to 1,3-butadiene is quite consistent with the correlation between activation energy for the addition of peroxyl radicals to mono-alkenes and the energy released by charge transfer to the radical (E C ). 7 Acknowledgements DMSS would like to thank the EPSRC for funding this work. (5) Atkinson, R. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 1997, 26, 215. (6) Parr, R. G.; Pearson, R. G. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1983, 105, 7512. (7) Stark, M. S., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 4162. Title: unihard Creator: UNIRAS 6V4 - HPOSTEPS Preview: This EPS picture was not saved with a preview included in it. Comment: This EPS picture will print to a PostScript printer, but not to other types of printers. Alkene log 10 ( A /dm 3 m ol -1 s -1 ) E act /kJ m ol -1 2,3-dim ethyl-2-butene 9.1± 0.6 13.3±5.0 1,3-butadiene 9.6± 0.6 30.9±5.0 isoprene 8.7± 0.9 23.3±6.7 2,3-dim ethyl-1,3-butadiene 8.1± 1.4 17± 11 1,5-hexadiene 9.6± 0.8 35.8±6.2 T able 1: A rrhenius parameters for the addition of acetylperoxyl radicals to 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene, selected conjugate dienes, and 1,5-hexadiene. Title: unihard Creator: UNIRAS 6V4 - HPOSTEPS Preview: This EPS picture was not saved with a preview included in it. Comment: This EPS picture will print to a PostScript printer, but not to other types of printers. Activation Energy vs. Alkene Ionisation Energy The activation energy for addition of acetylperoxyl radicals to 1,3-butadiene is higher than would be expected from the relationship between alkene ionisation energy and activation energy for addition to unsubstituted mono-alkenes. The addition shows no sign of steric hindrance, in fact the pre-exponential factor is slightly larger than for other peroxyl radical addition reactions. The difference in electronegativities between the alkene and the attacking radical controls the rate of addition, so peroxyl radical addition to 1,3-butadiene has a similar activation energy to that for propene. This is shown graphically here (the gradient for a zero charge transfer represents the absolute electronegativity). 6 This demonstrates the need to also consider the electron affinity of the alkene, and not just its ionisation energy, when examining its reactivity. The relationship between radical electronegativity and activation energy for addition to 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene is given here. As a comparison, values for two other oxygen centred species (ozone 4 and the nitrate radical 5 ) are also given. They also fall on the same Title: unihard Creator: UNIRAS 6V4 - HPOSTEPS Preview: This EPS picture was not saved with a preview included in it. Comment: This EPS picture will print to a PostScript printer, but not to other types of printers. Title: unihard Creator: UNIRAS 6V4 - HPOSTEPS Preview: This EPS picture was not saved with a preview included in it. Comment: This EPS picture will print to a PostScript printer, but not to other types of printers. This is perhaps surprising, considering that the resultant adduct radical is resonance stabilised. The activation energy for addition to 1,3-butadiene is in fact comparable to values for terminal mono-alkenes, in spite of having a lower ionisation energy.

Post on 20-Dec-2015

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

1

Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS

Detector at the LHC

DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007

A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T. Göttfert, R. Härtel, S. Kluth, S. Menke, R. Nisius, S. Pataraia, E. Rauter, P. Schacht, J. Schieck

Page 2: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

2

The Large Hadron Collider

The Large Hadron Collider

ECM = 14 TeV

L = 1034cm-2s-1

Page 3: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

3

Experiments at the LHC

Page 4: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

4

The ATLAS Detector

• Lead / liquid argon electromagnetic sampling calorimeter.

• Electron, photon identification and measurements.

• Hadronic calorimeter.• Scintillator-tile barrel calorimeter.

• Copper / liquid argon hadronic

end-cap calorimeter.• Tungsten / liquid argon forward

calorimeter.• Measurements of jet properties.

• Air-core toroid magnet• Instrumented with muon

chambers.

• Muon spectrometer.• Measurement of muon

momentum.

• Inner Detector surrounded by superconducting solenoid magnet..• Pixel detector, semiconductor tracker, transition radiation tracker. • Momentum and vertex measurements; electron, tau and heavy-flavor identification.

Page 5: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

5

Why Study the Top Quark? • Measurement of top-antitop

production cross section provides a test of QCD.

• Accurate measurement of mt is valuable as input to precision electroweak analyses.

• A precision measurement of mt and mW can be used to constrain the Higgs mass.

• Top pair production will provide a significant background to future measurements. • It is important to measure the

production rate precisely.

LEP, Tevatron, SLD: mW = 80.392 ± 0.029

Tevatron: mt = 171.4 ± 2.1 GeV

Page 6: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

6

Top Quark Physics

• Γ(t → Wb) ~ 100%• Hadronic channel:• tt → Wb Wb → jjb jjb• Γ = 44.4% • Semileptonic channel:• tt → Wb Wb → lvb jjb• Γ = 50.7%• Dileptonic channel:• tt → Wb Wb → lvb lvb• Γ = 4.9%

LHC:

10% quark-antiquark annihilation

90% gluon fusion

Page 7: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

7

Samples

• Semileptonic ttbar events are signal. • Dileptonic ttbar events are background.

• csc11.005200, σ=461 pb, L=1072 pb-1

• NLO event generator MC@NLO / Herwig• Detector simulation performed using Athena 11.0.42

• Hadronic ttbar events are background. • csc11.005204, σ=369 pb, L=105 pb-1

• NLO event generator MC@NLO / Herwig• Detector simulation performed using Athena 11.0.42

• Inclusive W+N jets events are main physics background.• rome.003017, σ=1200 pb, L=136 pb-1

• LO event generator Alpgen• Generated using Athena 10.0.2• Reconstructed using Athena 11.0.42

Page 8: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

8

Selection Cuts

• Each event was required to have:• Exactly one isolated, high-pT

electron or muon.• For e “isolated” meant E∆R=0.45 < 6 GeV• For μ “isolated” meant E∆R=0.20 < 1 GeV• pT(l) > 20 GeV, |η| < 2.5

• At least four jets. • Jets are reconstructed using kT

algorithm with D = 0.4. • |η| < 2.5• pT(j1) > 40 GeV, pT(j2) > 40 GeV • pT(j3) > 20 GeV, pT(j4) > 20GeV

• Missing ET > 20 GeV • No b-tagging was required.

• Considered events in the semileptonic ttbar channel where the lepton is

an electron or a muon. Γ = 29.9%

j

ν

μ

W

W

b

b

t

tg

g

p

p

j

Page 9: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

9

Event Reconstruction

• For each event:

• Consider all jets with pT > 20 GeV.

• Create all possible 3-jet combinations.

• Select that 3-jet combination with maximum pT to represent the reconstructed hadronic top quark.

• Consider the 3 jets used to reconstruct top quark.

• Form the 3 possible 2-jet combinations.

• Take the 2-jet combination with the maximal pT to represent the reconstructed hadronic W boson.

Page 10: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

10

Hadronic Top and W Boson MassMass of Hadronic Topmt

fit = 162.1 ± 1.4 GeV mtTevatron

= 171.4 ± 2.1 GeVmt

MC = 175.0 GeV

Mass of W BosonmW

fit = 79.6 ± 0.5 GeVmW

LEP = 80.39 ± 0.03 GeV

Page 11: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

11

Optimization of kT Jet Algorithm

• A successive combination algorithm such as kT recursively combines objects (particles, calorimeter cells, towers, clusters) with “nearby” momenta into jets.• “Nearby” is defined in η-φ space: ∆R = √((∆η)2 + (∆φ)2)

• Two objects will be merged into one jet if ∆R < D2.• The parameter D must be chosen properly for the process in question.

• If D is too small, objects which should be combined into a jet may be excluded. • If D is too large, objects which should not be merged into a single jet may be merged.

D = 0.4 D = 0.7 D = 0.9 D = 1.0D = 0.1

Invariant Mass Distribution of the W Boson• Jet reconstruction algorithm was run on Monte Carlo truth after hadronization. • No detector simulation was performed.

Page 12: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

12

Optimization of kT Jet Algorithm

• Jet reconstruction algorithm was run on Monte Carlo truth after hadronization.

• No detector simulation was performed. • D = 0.4 is “reasonable”.

W Mass as function of D Parameter Top Mass as function of D Parameter

Page 13: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

13

• Used 10% of ttbar signal sample as “data”.

• Used remaining 90% of sample as Monte Carlo.

• LMC = 971 pb-1

• Ldata = 106 pb-1

• Only ttbar background was considered.

• Consistency check:• εdata = 0.2010 ± 0.0015• εMC = 0.1996 ± 0.0005

• For Monte Carlo: • εe = 30.40 %, εμ = 28.08 %• ετ = 4.86 %, εll = 15.09 %

Monte Carlo Cross Section Studies

Page 14: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

14

Monte Carlo Cross Section Studies

• σdata = Ndata / Ldata εeMC

• For semileptonic ttbar events with electron or muon: • σdata = 250 ± 3 (stat) pb

• Consistency check:

• Known from Monte Carlo: σMC = 248 pb

• Ldata = 100 pb-1 gives statistical precision of 1%. • Statistics will not be an issue in this channel at the LHC.

Page 15: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

15

Summary

• Studies were performed in semileptonic channel with electron or muon.

• Jet reconstruction was performed using kT algorithm with D = 0.4.

• Efficiencies:• For semileptonic signal:

• εe = 27.4 %, εμ = 25.3 %• For semileptonic background with tau lepton:

• ετ = 4.4 %, • For dileptonic and hadronic ttbar background:

• εll = 13.6 %, εjj = 0.1 % • For W+N jets background:

• εW+Njets = 14.4 %

• Purity is π = 0.26• No correction has yet been made for jet energy scale.• Estimate of systematic errors on top mass and cross

section is next on our agenda.

Page 16: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

16

Backup Slides

Page 17: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

17

Goals of the ATLAS Experiment

• Investigate mechanism of mass generation.

• Detect and measure properties of Higgs boson.

• Search for evidence of Supersymmetry.

• Probe the nature of matter-antimatter asymmetry and CP violation.

• Investigate nature of dark matter and dark energy.

• Perform precision measurements of top quark properties.

• Operate at L = 1034 cm-2s-1 • Provide as many different types of event signatures as possible.

Page 18: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

18

Why Study the Top Quark?

• Top is the heaviest known fundamental fermion. • Top will couple more

strongly to the Higgs boson.

• Top provides logical point of departure for studies of the nature of fermion mass generation.

Dhiman Chakraborty

Mass hierarchy of the elementary particles.

Page 19: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

19

Jet Energy Scale

• Factors affecting jet reconstruction include:• Physics factors

• Initial- and final-state radiation• Fragmentation• Underlying event, minimum bias events, pile-up

• Detector performance factors• Electronic noise• Magnetic field• Non-linear calorimeter response• Lateral shower size• Dead material and cracks• Longitudinal energy leakage (high-pT jets)

• Reconstruction• Jet reconstruction algorithm• Out-of-cone energy loss

Page 20: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

20

Successive Combination vs. Cone Algorithm

• Successive combination algorithm recursively groups objects (particles, calorimeter cells, towers, clusters) with “nearby” momenta into larger sets of objects. “Nearby” is defined in (ET, η, φ) space. Initial sets contain one object each; final sets are the jets.

• Never assigns a single object to more than one jet.

• Merging jets is not an issue: the algorithm performs this automatically.

• Geometry of jet boundaries can be complicated. Does not yield regular shapes in η-φ plane.

• Jet cross sections are likely to exhibit smaller higher-order and hadronization corrections.

• S. Ellis, D. Soper, CERN-TH.6860/93

• Cone algorithm defines jet as set of objects whose angular momentum vectors lie within a cone centered on the jet axis.

• Jet cones can overlap such that one object is contained in more than one jet.

• Merging jets is an issue.

• Cone jets always have smooth, well defined boundaries.

• Jet cross sections may have larger higher-order perturbative corrections.

• Parameters can be adjusted such that the inclusive jet cross section resulting from application of successive combination algorithm is essentially identical to inclusive jet cross section obtained by applying cone algorithm.

Page 21: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

21

Fit to Top Mass, W Mass

mtfit = 163.7 ± 1.5 GeV

mtPDG = 174.2 ± 3.3 GeV

mWfit = 83.05 ± 1.14 GeV

mWPDG = 80.40 ± 0.03 GeV

• Jets were reconstructed using Cone4 jet algorithm.

Page 22: 1 Study of Top-Antitop Production with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC DPG Frühjahrstagung, 9.03.2007 A. Bangert, T. Barillari, S. Bethke, N. Ghodbane, T

22

Cross Section Estimate

• Number of initial events in each channel was known from Monte Carlo.

• Number of final events in each channel after selection cuts was obtained from Monte Carlo.

• Efficiency was computed for each channel:• εMC = Nf

MC/ NiMC

• Fraction of events in each channel was calculated using Monte Carlo:• Fe

MC = NfMC(e) / Nf

MC

• Fraction of final events per decay channel and efficiency obtained from Monte Carlo were assumed to be valid for “data”.• Nf

data(e) = FeMCNf

data, Nfdata(μ) = Fμ

MCNfdata

• δNe = √Ne, δσe = δNe / Ldataεe, δσ = √(δσe2 + δσμ

2)• δε = √(ε (1 - ε) / Ni)