Here I present the full Data / Simulation comparison for the reproduced FF data set ...

All plots on this page are from the anti-kt R=0.6 5-point jet branch unless otherwise noted. This analysis was done using the gains currently in the database (ie no factor of 2.5% has been added).

In this study I look at data / simulation comparisons for both single jet quantities and dijet quantities. Both the single jet and dijet quantities have had a Z-vertex reweighting applied. For the single jet quantities, there is a seperate reweighting applied for each jet branch used and for each trigger category. For the dijet quantities, I have combined all jet branches and so there is one reweighting for each trigger category regardless of which jet branch is being used.

Figures 1 - 3 below and the accompanying pdf file show data / simulation comparisons for the single jet quantities. I split the jets into 6 trigger categories which are defined on this page. I also divide the jets into 3 categories based on their tower content, I look at jets which have only barrel towers, jets which have only endcap towers, and jets which have both barrel and endcap towers. My feeling is that the data / simu disagreement seen in the endcap region is due to a tower calibration issue so by isolating the jets containing endcap towers, hopefully we can see the effect on other jet quantities of interest. As opposed to previous data / simu comparisons, I have combined the high and low pt jets into single plots instead of keeping them seperate. In addition to cutting down on the number of plots to look at, combining them gives better statistics so trends are easier to see.

Note on normalizations: For the single jet quantity comparisons, each of the 6 trigger categories is allowed to have a separate scale factor to allign the data and simulation. The scale factor is just the total number of data jets in the trigger category divided by the total number of simu jets in that category. The same scale factor is used for the barrel, endcap, and barrel+endcap tower only jet plots. So for example, the barrel tower only L2JetHigh plot, the endcap tower only L2JetHigh plot, and the barrel+endcap tower only L2JetHigh plot all use the same normalization factor which is set by the L2JetHigh data to simulation integral for all jets.

Figure 1: This figure shows the jet pt spectra (top six pannels) and the data / simu ratio (bottom 6 pannels) for the 6 different trigger categories. The Blue curves are Data and the Red curves are Simulation

Figure 2: This figure shows the jet pt spectra (top six pannels) and the data / simu ratio (bottom 6 pannels) for the 6 different trigger categories. The Blue curves are Data and the Red curves are Simulation.

Durring the run, the innermost ~7 padrows of TPC sectors 4 and 11 were dead (the inner 7 padrows for sector 18 were also dead from run 10158014 to run 10174044). This is reflected in large acceptance dips in the phi spectrum around phi = -0.5 (sector 4) and phi = 2.0 (sector 11) for jets which contain only endcap towers. Sectors 4 and 11 are on the west side of the TPC (sector 18 is on the east side) and tracks which enter the endcap tend to have most of their hit points in the inner TPC, so if roughly half of it is dead, it will be difficult for tracks in those sectors to pass the NHits and NHits/NHitsPossible requirements. Tracks in the barrel will tend to have more hit points in the outer TPC and so are less effected by these dead padrows. The embedding simulation does a reasonably good job reproducing the features seen.

Figure 3: This figure shows the jet phi spectra for jets which have only barrel towers (upper 6 pannels) and jets which have only endcap towers (lower 6 pannels). The blue curves are data and the red curves are simulation. The dips at -0.5 and 2 can be seen most prominently for the trigger categories where tracks contribute significantly. The offset between data and simulation for the endcap tower only jets is a common feature of this category. The data / simu ratio for barrel tower only jets can be seen here and the ratio for endcap tower only jets can seen here.

The figures above show just a few of the single jet quantity data / simulation comparisons I have made. This pdf contains comparisons for many more quantities as well as the barrel, endcap, and barrel+endcap tower only jet categories for each quantity. Each quantity has 8 pages in the pdf. The first page shows the spectra for all jets, the second page shows the corresponding ratios, the third page shows the spectra for all barrel tower only jets, the fourth page shows the corresponding ratios. The next two pages show the endcap tower only jet spectra and ratios and the final two pages show the barrel+endcap tower only jet spectra and ratios. The quantities included are: jet pt, jet eta, jet phi, jet mass, jet neutral fraction, jet track pt scalar sum, jet tower pt scalar sum, number of tracks in jet, number of towers in jet, track pt spectrum, tower pt spectrum, track eta spectrum, tower eta spectrum, track phi spectrum, and tower phi spectrum.

The following plots and pdf show data / simulation comparisons for the dijet quantities such as invariant mass. There are 8 valid trigger combinations for the dijets which are described on this page. I also divide the dijets into 6 different topological categories based on the physical pseudorapidities of the two jets making up the dijet. These categories are:

• East Barrel - East Barrel (EE): Both jet eta < 0.0
• West Barrel - West Barrel (WW): Both jet eta >= 0.0 and < 1.0
• East Barrel - West Barrel (EW): One jet eta < 0.0 and other jet eta >= 0.0 and < 1.0
• East Barrel - Endcap (EC): One jet eta < 0.0 and the other jet eta >= 1.0
• West Barrel - Endcap (WC): One jet eta >= 0.0 and < 1.0 and other jet eta >= 1.0
• Endcap - Endcap (CC): Both jet eta >= 1.0

Another note on normalization: As I did for the single jet quantities, each of the 8 valid dijet trigger combinations is allowed to have a separate normalization between data and simulation. When looking at the topological breakdown for a given trigger combination, each topological category uses the same normalization which is the normalization calculated using the data and simu integrals over all events for that given trigger combination. When I look at the 6 topological categories summed over all trigger categories (as in figure 5), the simulated event from each trigger category are added with the appropriate normalization factor.

Figure 4: This figure shows the dijet invariant mass for the 8 trigger combinations. The blue curves are data and the red curves are simulation. The top eight pannels show the spectra and the bottom eight pannels show the data / simu ratio. From left to right, top to bottom the trigger combinations are: L2JetHigh-L2JetHigh, L2JetHigh-JP1Lo, L2JetHigh-Un, JP1Lo-JP1Lo, JP1Lo-JP1Hi, JP1Lo-Un, JP1Hi-JP1Hi, and JP1Hi-Un.

Figure 5: This figure shows the dijet invariant mass for each of the 6 topological categories. I have summed over the 8 valid trigger combinations. The blue curves are data and the red curves are simulation. The top six pannels shows the spectra and the bottom six pannels show the data / simu ratios.

In addition to the invariant mass plots shown in figures 4 and 5, I also look at the jet eta sum and absolute value of the jet eta difference. I also look at the 6 topological divisions for each of the 8 trigger combinations separately, as opposed to haveing the 8 trigger combinations summed over as in figure 5. These plots can be found in this pdf.