1711 lines
76 KiB
TeX
1711 lines
76 KiB
TeX
% Options for packages loaded elsewhere
|
|
\PassOptionsToPackage{unicode}{hyperref}
|
|
\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
|
|
%
|
|
\documentclass[
|
|
12pt,
|
|
british,
|
|
a4paper,
|
|
]{article}
|
|
\usepackage{lmodern}
|
|
\usepackage{amssymb,amsmath}
|
|
\usepackage{ifxetex,ifluatex}
|
|
\ifnum 0\ifxetex 1\fi\ifluatex 1\fi=0 % if pdftex
|
|
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
|
|
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
|
|
\usepackage{textcomp} % provide euro and other symbols
|
|
\else % if luatex or xetex
|
|
\usepackage{unicode-math}
|
|
\defaultfontfeatures{Scale=MatchLowercase}
|
|
\defaultfontfeatures[\rmfamily]{Ligatures=TeX,Scale=1}
|
|
\setmainfont[]{Times New Roman}
|
|
\fi
|
|
% Use upquote if available, for straight quotes in verbatim environments
|
|
\IfFileExists{upquote.sty}{\usepackage{upquote}}{}
|
|
\IfFileExists{microtype.sty}{% use microtype if available
|
|
\usepackage[]{microtype}
|
|
\UseMicrotypeSet[protrusion]{basicmath} % disable protrusion for tt fonts
|
|
}{}
|
|
\makeatletter
|
|
\@ifundefined{KOMAClassName}{% if non-KOMA class
|
|
\IfFileExists{parskip.sty}{%
|
|
\usepackage{parskip}
|
|
}{% else
|
|
\setlength{\parindent}{0pt}
|
|
\setlength{\parskip}{6pt plus 2pt minus 1pt}}
|
|
}{% if KOMA class
|
|
\KOMAoptions{parskip=half}}
|
|
\makeatother
|
|
\usepackage{xcolor}
|
|
\IfFileExists{xurl.sty}{\usepackage{xurl}}{} % add URL line breaks if available
|
|
\IfFileExists{bookmark.sty}{\usepackage{bookmark}}{\usepackage{hyperref}}
|
|
\hypersetup{
|
|
pdftitle={Search for excited quark states decaying to qW/qZ},
|
|
pdfauthor={David Leppla-Weber},
|
|
pdflang={en-GB},
|
|
hidelinks,
|
|
pdfcreator={LaTeX via pandoc}}
|
|
\urlstyle{same} % disable monospaced font for URLs
|
|
\usepackage[top=2.5cm,left=2.5cm,right=2.5cm,bottom=2cm]{geometry}
|
|
\usepackage{longtable,booktabs}
|
|
% Correct order of tables after \paragraph or \subparagraph
|
|
\usepackage{etoolbox}
|
|
\makeatletter
|
|
\patchcmd\longtable{\par}{\if@noskipsec\mbox{}\fi\par}{}{}
|
|
\makeatother
|
|
% Allow footnotes in longtable head/foot
|
|
\IfFileExists{footnotehyper.sty}{\usepackage{footnotehyper}}{\usepackage{footnote}}
|
|
\makesavenoteenv{longtable}
|
|
\usepackage{graphicx,grffile}
|
|
\makeatletter
|
|
\def\maxwidth{\ifdim\Gin@nat@width>\linewidth\linewidth\else\Gin@nat@width\fi}
|
|
\def\maxheight{\ifdim\Gin@nat@height>\textheight\textheight\else\Gin@nat@height\fi}
|
|
\makeatother
|
|
% Scale images if necessary, so that they will not overflow the page
|
|
% margins by default, and it is still possible to overwrite the defaults
|
|
% using explicit options in \includegraphics[width, height, ...]{}
|
|
\setkeys{Gin}{width=\maxwidth,height=\maxheight,keepaspectratio}
|
|
% Set default figure placement to htbp
|
|
\makeatletter
|
|
\def\fps@figure{htbp}
|
|
\makeatother
|
|
\setlength{\emergencystretch}{3em} % prevent overfull lines
|
|
\providecommand{\tightlist}{%
|
|
\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}
|
|
\setcounter{secnumdepth}{5}
|
|
\usepackage[onehalfspacing]{setspace}
|
|
\usepackage{siunitx}
|
|
\usepackage{tikz-feynman}
|
|
\usepackage{csquotes}
|
|
\pagenumbering{gobble}
|
|
\setlength{\parskip}{0.5em}
|
|
\bibliographystyle{lucas_unsrt}
|
|
\makeatletter
|
|
\@ifpackageloaded{subfig}{}{\usepackage{subfig}}
|
|
\@ifpackageloaded{caption}{}{\usepackage{caption}}
|
|
\captionsetup[subfloat]{margin=0.5em}
|
|
\AtBeginDocument{%
|
|
\renewcommand*\figurename{Figure}
|
|
\renewcommand*\tablename{Table}
|
|
}
|
|
\AtBeginDocument{%
|
|
\renewcommand*\listfigurename{List of Figures}
|
|
\renewcommand*\listtablename{List of Tables}
|
|
}
|
|
\@ifpackageloaded{float}{}{\usepackage{float}}
|
|
\floatstyle{ruled}
|
|
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newfloat{codelisting}{h}{lop}}{\newfloat{codelisting}{h}{lop}[chapter]}
|
|
\floatname{codelisting}{Listing}
|
|
\newcommand*\listoflistings{\listof{codelisting}{List of Listings}}
|
|
\makeatother
|
|
\ifxetex
|
|
% Load polyglossia as late as possible: uses bidi with RTL langages (e.g. Hebrew, Arabic)
|
|
\usepackage{polyglossia}
|
|
\setmainlanguage[variant=british]{english}
|
|
\else
|
|
\usepackage[shorthands=off,main=british]{babel}
|
|
\fi
|
|
\usepackage[]{biblatex}
|
|
\addbibresource{bibliography.bib}
|
|
|
|
\title{Search for excited quark states decaying to qW/qZ}
|
|
\author{David Leppla-Weber}
|
|
\date{}
|
|
|
|
\begin{document}
|
|
\maketitle
|
|
\begin{abstract}
|
|
A search for an excited quark state, called q*, is presented using data
|
|
recorded by CMS during the years 2016, 2017 and 2018. By analysing its
|
|
decay channels to qW and qZ, a minimum mass of 6.1 TeV resp. 5.5 TeV is
|
|
established. This limit is about 1 TeV higher than the limits found by a
|
|
previous research of data collected by CMS in 2016
|
|
\autocite{PREV_RESEARCH}, excluding the q* particle up to a mass of 5.0
|
|
TeV resp. 4.7 TeV. Also a comparison of the new DeepAK8
|
|
\autocite{DEEP_BOOSTED} and the older N-subjettiness \autocite{TAU21}
|
|
tagger is conducted, showing that the newer DeepAK8 tagger is currently
|
|
approximately at the same level as the N-subjettiness tagger, but has
|
|
the potential to further improve in performance.
|
|
|
|
\end{abstract}
|
|
\begin{abstract}
|
|
Abstract 2.
|
|
\end{abstract}
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
|
|
\tableofcontents
|
|
}
|
|
\newpage
|
|
\pagenumbering{arabic}
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{introduction}{%
|
|
\section{Introduction}\label{introduction}}
|
|
|
|
The Standard Model is a very successful theory in describing most of the
|
|
effects on a particle level. But it still has a lot of shortcomings that
|
|
show that it isn't yet a full \enquote{theory of everything}. To solve
|
|
these shortcomings, lots of theories beyond the standard model exist
|
|
that try to explain some of them.
|
|
|
|
One category of such theories is based on a composite quark model.
|
|
Quarks are currently considered elementary particles by the Standard
|
|
Model. The composite quark models on the other hand predict that quarks
|
|
consist of particles unknown to us so far or can bind to other particles
|
|
using unknown forces. This could explain the symmetries between
|
|
particles and reduce the number of constants needed to explain the
|
|
properties of the known particles. One common prediction of those
|
|
theories are excited quark states. Those are quark states of higher
|
|
energy that can decay to an unexcited quark under the emission of a
|
|
boson. This thesis will search for their decay to a quark and a W/Z
|
|
boson. The W/Z boson then decays in the hadronic channel, to two more
|
|
quarks. The endstate of this decay has only quarks, making Quantum
|
|
Chromodynamics effects the main background.
|
|
|
|
In a previous research \autocite{PREV_RESEARCH}, a lower limit for the
|
|
mass of an excited quark has already been set using data from the 2016
|
|
run of the Large Hadron Collider with an integrated luminosity of
|
|
\(\SI{35.92}{\per\femto\barn}\). Since then, a lot more data has been
|
|
collected, totalling to \(\SI{137.19}{\per\femto\barn}\) of data usable
|
|
for research. This thesis uses this new data as well as a new technique
|
|
to identify decays of highly boosted particles based on a deep neural
|
|
network. By using more data and new tagging techniques, it aims to
|
|
either confirm the existence of the q* particle or improve the
|
|
previously set lower limit of 5 TeV respectively 4.7 TeV for the decay
|
|
to qW respectively qZ on its mass to even higher values. It will also
|
|
directly compare the performance of this new tagging technique to an
|
|
older tagger based on jet substructure studies used in the previous
|
|
research.
|
|
|
|
In chapter 2, a theoretical background will be presented explaining in
|
|
short the Standard Model, its shortcomings and the theory of excited
|
|
quarks. Then, in chapter 3, the Large Hadron Collider and the Compact
|
|
Muon Solenoid, the detector that collected the data for this analysis,
|
|
will be described. After that, in chapters 4-7, the main analysis part
|
|
follows, describing how the data was used to extract limits on the mass
|
|
of the excited quark particle. At the very end, in chapter 8, the
|
|
results are presented and compared to previous research.
|
|
|
|
\newpage
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{theoretical-motivation}{%
|
|
\section{Theoretical motivation}\label{theoretical-motivation}}
|
|
|
|
This chapter presents a short summary of the theoretical background
|
|
relevant to this thesis. It first gives an introduction to the standard
|
|
model itself and some of the issues it raises. It then goes on to
|
|
explain the background processes of quantum chromodynamics and the
|
|
theory of q*, which will be the main topic of this thesis.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{sec:sm}{%
|
|
\subsection{Standard model}\label{sec:sm}}
|
|
|
|
The Standard Model of physics proved to be very successful in describing
|
|
three of the four fundamental interactions currently known: the
|
|
electromagnetic, weak and strong interaction. The fourth, gravity, could
|
|
not yet be successfully included in this theory.
|
|
|
|
The Standard Model divides all particles into spin-\(\frac{n}{2}\)
|
|
fermions and spin-n bosons, where n could be any integer but so far is
|
|
only known to be one for fermions and either one (gauge bosons) or zero
|
|
(scalar bosons) for bosons. Fermions are further classified into quarks
|
|
and leptons. Quarks and leptons can also be categorized into three
|
|
generations, each of which contains two particles, also called flavours.
|
|
For leptons, the three generations each consist of a lepton and its
|
|
corresponding neutrino, namely first the electron, then the muon and
|
|
third, the tau. The three quark generations consist of first, the up and
|
|
down, second, the charm and strange, and third, the top and bottom
|
|
quark. So overall, their exists a total of six quark and six lepton
|
|
flavours. A full list of particles known to the standard model can be
|
|
found in fig.~\ref{fig:sm}. Furthermore, all fermions have an associated
|
|
anti particle with reversed charge.
|
|
|
|
The matter around us, is built from so called hadrons, that are bound
|
|
states of quarks, for example protons and neutrons. Long lived hadrons
|
|
consist of up and down quarks, as the heavier ones over time decay to
|
|
those.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\hypertarget{fig:sm}{%
|
|
\centering
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,height=\textheight]{./figures/sm_wikipedia.pdf}
|
|
\caption{Elementary particles of the Standard Model and their mass
|
|
charge and spin.}\label{fig:sm}
|
|
}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
The gauge bosons, namely the photon, \(W^\pm\) bosons, \(Z^0\) boson,
|
|
and gluon, are mediators of the different forces of the standard model.
|
|
|
|
The photon is responsible for the electromagnetic force and therefore
|
|
interacts with all electrically charged particles. It itself carries no
|
|
electromagnetic charge and has no mass. Possible interactions are either
|
|
scattering or absorption. Photons of different energies can also be
|
|
described as electromagnetic waves of different wavelengths.
|
|
|
|
The \(W^\pm\) and \(Z^0\) bosons mediate the weak force. All quarks and
|
|
leptons carry a flavour, which is a conserved value. Only the weak
|
|
interaction breaks this conservation, a quark or lepton can therefore,
|
|
by interacting with a \(W^\pm\) boson, change its flavour. The
|
|
probabilities of this happening are determined by the
|
|
Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix:
|
|
|
|
\begin{equation}
|
|
V_{CKM} =
|
|
\begin{pmatrix}
|
|
|V_{ud}| & |V_{us}| & |V_{ub}| \\
|
|
|V_{cd}| & |V_{cs}| & |V_{cb}| \\
|
|
|V_{td}| & |V_{ts}| & |V_{tb}|
|
|
\end{pmatrix}
|
|
=
|
|
\begin{pmatrix}
|
|
0.974 & 0.225 & 0.004 \\
|
|
0.224 & 0.974 & 0.042 \\
|
|
0.008 & 0.041 & 0.999
|
|
\end{pmatrix}
|
|
\end{equation} The probability of a quark changing its flavour from
|
|
\(i\) to \(j\) is given by the square of the absolute value of the
|
|
matrix element \(V_{ij}\). It is easy to see, that the change of flavour
|
|
in the same generation is way more likely than any other flavour change.
|
|
|
|
Due to their high masses of 80.39 GeV resp. 91.19 GeV, the \(W^\pm\) and
|
|
\(Z^0\) bosons themselves decay very quickly. Either in the leptonic or
|
|
hadronic decay channel. In the leptonic channel, the \(W^\pm\) decays to
|
|
a lepton and the corresponding anti-lepton neutrino, in the hadronic
|
|
channel it decays to a quark and an anti-quark of a different flavour.
|
|
Due to the \(Z^0\) boson having no charge, it always decays to a fermion
|
|
and its anti-particle, in the leptonic channel this might be for example
|
|
a electron - positron pair, in the hadronic channel an up and anti-up
|
|
quark pair. This thesis examines the hadronic decay channel, where both
|
|
vector bosons essentially decay to to quarks.
|
|
|
|
The quantum chromodynamics (QCD) describes the strong interaction of
|
|
particles. It applies to all particles carrying colour (e.g.~quarks).
|
|
The force is mediated by gluons. These bosons carry colour as well,
|
|
although they don't carry only one colour but rather a combination of a
|
|
colour and an anticolour, and can therefore interact with themselves and
|
|
exist in eight different variants. As a result of this, processes, where
|
|
a gluon decays into two gluons are possible. Furthermore the strength of
|
|
the strong force, binding to colour carrying particles, increases with
|
|
their distance making it at a certain point more energetically efficient
|
|
to form a new quark - antiquark pair than separating the two particles
|
|
even further. This effect is known as colour confinement. Due to this
|
|
effect, colour carrying particles can't be observed directly, but rather
|
|
form so called jets that cause hadronic showers in the detector. Those
|
|
jets are cone like structures made of hadrons and other particles. The
|
|
effect is called Hadronisation.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{shortcomings-of-the-standard-model}{%
|
|
\subsubsection{Shortcomings of the Standard
|
|
Model}\label{shortcomings-of-the-standard-model}}
|
|
|
|
While being very successful in describing the effects observed in
|
|
particle colliders or the particles reaching earth from cosmological
|
|
sources, the Standard Model still has several shortcomings.
|
|
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\tightlist
|
|
\item
|
|
\textbf{Gravity}: as already noted, the standard model doesn't include
|
|
gravity as a force.
|
|
\item
|
|
\textbf{Dark Matter}: observations of the rotational velocity of
|
|
galaxies can't be explained by the known matter. Dark matter currently
|
|
is our best theory to explain those.
|
|
\item
|
|
\textbf{Matter-antimatter asymmetry}: The amount of matter vastly
|
|
outweights the amount of antimatter in the observable universe. This
|
|
can't be explained by the standard model, which predicts a similar
|
|
amount of matter and antimatter.
|
|
\item
|
|
\textbf{Symmetries between particles}: Why do exactly three
|
|
generations of fermions exist? Why is the charge of a quark exactly
|
|
one third of the charge of a lepton? How are the masses of the
|
|
particles related? Those and more questions cannot be answered by the
|
|
standard model.
|
|
\item
|
|
\textbf{Hierarchy problem}: The weak force is approximately
|
|
\(10^{24}\) times stronger than gravity and so far, there's no
|
|
satisfactory explanation as to why that is.
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{sec:qs}{%
|
|
\subsection{Excited quark states}\label{sec:qs}}
|
|
|
|
One category of theories that try to explain the symmetries between
|
|
particles of the standard model are the composite quark models. Those
|
|
state, that quarks consist of some particles unknown to us so far. This
|
|
could explain the symmetries between the different fermions. A common
|
|
prediction of those models are excited quark states (q*, q**,
|
|
q***\ldots). Similar to atoms, that can be excited by the absorption of
|
|
a photon and can then decay again under emission of a photon with an
|
|
energy corresponding to the excited state, those excited quark states
|
|
could decay under the emission of any boson. Quarks are smaller than
|
|
\(10^{-18}\) m. This corresponds to an energy scale of approximately 1
|
|
TeV. Therefore the excited quark states are expected to be in that
|
|
region. That will cause the emitted boson to be highly boosted.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\centering
|
|
\feynmandiagram [large, horizontal=qs to v] {
|
|
a -- qs -- b,
|
|
qs -- [fermion, edge label=\(q*\)] v,
|
|
q1 [particle=\(q\)] -- v -- w [particle=\(W\)],
|
|
q2 [particle=\(q\)] -- w -- q3 [particle=\(q\)],
|
|
};
|
|
\caption{Feynman diagram showing a possible decay of a q* particle to a W boson and a quark with the W boson also
|
|
decaying to two quarks.} \label{fig:qsfeynman}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
This thesis will search data collected by the CMS in the years 2016,
|
|
2017 and 2018 for the single excited quark state q* which can decay to a
|
|
quark and any boson. An example of a q* decaying to a quark and a W
|
|
boson can be seen in fig.~\ref{fig:qsfeynman}. As explained in
|
|
sec.~\ref{sec:sm}, the vector boson can then decay either in the
|
|
hadronic or leptonic decay channel. This research investigates only the
|
|
hadronic channel with two quarks in the endstate. Because the boson is
|
|
highly boosted, those will be very close together and therefore appear
|
|
to the detector as only one jet. This means that the decay of a q*
|
|
particle will have two jets in the endstate (assuming the W/Z boson
|
|
decays to two quarks) and will therefore be hard to distinguish from the
|
|
QCD background described in sec.~\ref{sec:qcdbg}.
|
|
|
|
The choice of only examining the decay of the q* particle to the vector
|
|
bosons is motivated by the branching ratios calculated for the decay
|
|
\autocite{QSTAR_THEORY}:
|
|
|
|
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}llll@{}}
|
|
\caption{Branching ratios of the decaying q* particle.}\tabularnewline
|
|
\toprule
|
|
decay mode & br. ratio {[}\%{]} & decay mode & br. ratio
|
|
{[}\%{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endfirsthead
|
|
\toprule
|
|
decay mode & br. ratio {[}\%{]} & decay mode & br. ratio
|
|
{[}\%{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endhead
|
|
\(U^* \rightarrow ug\) & 83.4 & \(D^* \rightarrow dg\) &
|
|
83.4\tabularnewline
|
|
\(U^* \rightarrow dW\) & 10.9 & \(D^* \rightarrow uW\) &
|
|
10.9\tabularnewline
|
|
\(U^* \rightarrow u\gamma\) & 2.2 & \(D^* \rightarrow d\gamma\) &
|
|
0.5\tabularnewline
|
|
\(U^* \rightarrow uZ\) & 3.5 & \(D^* \rightarrow dZ\) &
|
|
5.1\tabularnewline
|
|
\bottomrule
|
|
\end{longtable}
|
|
|
|
The decay to the vector bosons have the second highest branching ratio.
|
|
The decay to a gluon and a quark is the dominant decay, but virtually
|
|
impossible to distinguish from the QCD background described in the next
|
|
section. This makes the decay to the vector bosons the obvious choice.
|
|
|
|
To reconstruct the mass of the q* particle from an event successfully
|
|
recognized to be the decay of such a particle, the dijet invariant mass
|
|
has to be calculated. This can be achieved by adding their four momenta,
|
|
vectors consisting of the energy and momentum of a particle, together.
|
|
From the four momentum it's easy to derive the mass by solving
|
|
\(E=\sqrt{p^2 + m^2}\) for m.
|
|
|
|
This theory has already been investigated in \autocite{PREV_RESEARCH}
|
|
analysing data recorded by CMS in 2016, excluding the q* particle up to
|
|
a mass of 5 TeV resp. 4.7 TeV for the decay to qW resp. qZ analysing the
|
|
hadronic decay of the vector boson. This thesis aims to either exclude
|
|
the particle to higher masses or find a resonance showing its existence
|
|
using the higher center of mass energy of the LHC as well as more data
|
|
that is available now.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{sec:qcdbg}{%
|
|
\subsubsection{Quantum Chromodynamic background}\label{sec:qcdbg}}
|
|
|
|
In this thesis, a decay with two jets in the endstate will be analysed.
|
|
Therefore it will be hard to distinguish the signal processes from QCD
|
|
effects. Those can also produce two jets in the endstate, as can be seen
|
|
in fig.~\ref{fig:qcdfeynman}. They are also happening very often in a
|
|
proton proton collision, as it is happening in the Large Hadron
|
|
Collider. This is caused by the structure of the proton. It not only
|
|
consists of three quarks, called valence quarks, but also of a lot of
|
|
quark-antiquark pairs connected by gluons, called the sea quarks, that
|
|
exist due to the self interaction of the gluons binding the three
|
|
valence quarks. Therefore the QCD multijet backgroubd is the dominant
|
|
background of the signal described in sec.~\ref{sec:qs}.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\centering
|
|
\feynmandiagram [horizontal=v1 to v2] {
|
|
q1 [particle=\(q\)] -- [fermion] v1 -- [gluon] g1 [particle=\(g\)],
|
|
v1 -- [gluon] v2,
|
|
q2 [particle=\(q\)] -- [fermion] v2 -- [gluon] g2 [particle=\(g\)],
|
|
};
|
|
\feynmandiagram [horizontal=v1 to v2] {
|
|
g1 [particle=\(g\)] -- [gluon] v1 -- [gluon] g2 [particle=\(g\)],
|
|
v1 -- [gluon] v2,
|
|
g3 [particle=\(g\)] -- [gluon] v2 -- [gluon] g4 [particle=\(g\)],
|
|
};
|
|
\caption{Two examples of QCD processes resulting in two jets.} \label{fig:qcdfeynman}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
\newpage
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{experimental-setup}{%
|
|
\section{Experimental Setup}\label{experimental-setup}}
|
|
|
|
Following on, the experimental setup used to gather the data analysed in
|
|
this thesis will be described.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{large-hadron-collider}{%
|
|
\subsection{Large Hadron Collider}\label{large-hadron-collider}}
|
|
|
|
The Large Hadron Collider is the world's largest and most powerful
|
|
particle accelerator \autocite{website}. It has a perimeter of 27 km and
|
|
can accelerate two beams of protons to an energy of 6.5 TeV resulting in
|
|
a collision with a centre of mass energy of 13 TeV. It is home to
|
|
several experiments, the biggest of those are ATLAS and the Compact Muon
|
|
Solenoid (CMS). Both are general-purpose detectors to investigate the
|
|
particles that form during particle collisions.
|
|
|
|
Particle colliders are characterized by their luminosity L. It is a
|
|
quantity to be able to calculate the number of events per second
|
|
generated in a collision by \(N_{event} = L\sigma_{event}\) with
|
|
\(\sigma_{event}\) being the cross section of the event. The luminosity
|
|
of the LHC for a Gaussian beam distribution can be described as follows:
|
|
|
|
\begin{equation}
|
|
L = \frac{N_b^2 n_b f_{rev} \gamma_r}{4 \pi \epsilon_n \beta^*}F
|
|
\end{equation} Where \(N_b\) is the number of particles per bunch,
|
|
\(n_b\) the number of bunches per beam, \(f_{rev}\) the revolution
|
|
frequency, \(\gamma_r\) the relativistic gamma factor, \(\epsilon_n\)
|
|
the normalised transverse beam emittance, \(\beta^*\) the beta function
|
|
at the collision point and F the geometric luminosity reduction factor
|
|
due to the crossing angle at the interaction point: \begin{equation}
|
|
F = \left(1+\left( \frac{\theta_c\sigma_z}{2\sigma^*}\right)^2\right)^{-1/2}
|
|
\end{equation} At the maximum luminosity of
|
|
\(10^{34}\si{\per\square\centi\metre\per\s}\),
|
|
\(N_b = 1.15 \cdot 10^{11}\), \(n_b = 2808\),
|
|
\(f_{rev} = \SI{11.2}{\kilo\Hz}\), \(\beta^* = \SI{0.55}{\m}\),
|
|
\(\epsilon_n = \SI{3.75}{\micro\m}\) and \(F = 0.85\).
|
|
|
|
To quantify the amount of data collected by one of the experiments at
|
|
LHC, the integrated luminosity is introduced as \(L_{int} = \int L dt\).
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{compact-muon-solenoid}{%
|
|
\subsection{Compact Muon Solenoid}\label{compact-muon-solenoid}}
|
|
|
|
The data used in this thesis was recorded by the Compact Muon Solenoid
|
|
(CMS). It is one of the four main experiments at the Large Hadron
|
|
Collider. It can detect all elementary particles of the standard model
|
|
except neutrinos. For that, it has an onion like setup, as can be seen
|
|
in fig.~\ref{fig:cms_setup}. The particles produced in a collision first
|
|
go through a tracking system. They then pass an electromegnetic as well
|
|
as a hadronic calorimeter. This part is surrounded by a superconducting
|
|
solenoid that generates a magenetic field of 3.8 T. Outside of the
|
|
solenoid are big muon chambers. In 2016 the CMS captured data of an
|
|
integrated luminosity of \(\SI{37.80}{\per\femto\barn}\). In 2017 it
|
|
collected \(\SI{44.98}{\per\femto\barn}\) and in 2018
|
|
\(\SI{63.67}{\per\femto\barn}\). Of that data, in 2016
|
|
\(\SI{35.92}{\per\femto\barn}\), in 2017 \(\SI{41.53}{\per\femto\barn}\)
|
|
and in 2018 \(\SI{59.74}{\per\femto\barn}\) were usable for research.
|
|
Therefore the combined integrated luminosity of data usable for research
|
|
is \(\SI{137.19}{\per\femto\barn}\).
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\hypertarget{fig:cms_setup}{%
|
|
\centering
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/cms_setup.png}
|
|
\caption{The setup of the Compact Muon Solenoid showing its onion like
|
|
structure, the different detector parts and where different particles
|
|
are detected \autocite{CMS_PLOT}.}\label{fig:cms_setup}
|
|
}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{coordinate-conventions}{%
|
|
\subsubsection{Coordinate conventions}\label{coordinate-conventions}}
|
|
|
|
Per convention, the z axis points along the beam axis in the direction
|
|
of the magnetic fields of the solenoid, the y axis upwards and the x
|
|
axis horizontal towards the LHC centre. The azimuthal angle \(\phi\),
|
|
which describes the angle in the x - y plane, the polar angle
|
|
\(\theta\), which describes the angle in the y - z plane and the
|
|
pseudorapidity \(\eta\), which is defined as
|
|
\(\eta = -ln\left(tan\frac{\theta}{2}\right)\) are also introduced. The
|
|
coordinates are visualised in fig.~\ref{fig:cmscoords}. Furthermore, to
|
|
describe a particle's momentum, often the transverse momentum, \(p_t\)
|
|
is used. It is the component of the momentum transversal to the beam
|
|
axis. Before the collision, the transverse momentum obviously has to be
|
|
zero, therefore, due to conservation of energy, the sum of all
|
|
transverse momenta after the collision has to be zero, too. If this is
|
|
not the case for the detected events, it implies particles that weren't
|
|
detected such as neutrinos.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\hypertarget{fig:cmscoords}{%
|
|
\centering
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth,height=\textheight]{./figures/cms_coordinates.png}
|
|
\caption{Coordinate conventions of the CMS illustrating the use of
|
|
\(\eta\) and \(\phi\). The Z axis is in beam direction. Taken from
|
|
https://inspirehep.net/record/1236817/plots}\label{fig:cmscoords}
|
|
}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{the-tracking-system}{%
|
|
\subsubsection{The tracking system}\label{the-tracking-system}}
|
|
|
|
The tracking system is built of two parts, closest to the collision is a
|
|
pixel detector and around that silicon strip sensors. They are used to
|
|
reconstruct the tracks of charged particles, measuring their charge
|
|
sign, direction and momentum. They are as close to the collision as
|
|
possible to be able to identify secondary vertices.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{the-electromagnetic-calorimeter}{%
|
|
\subsubsection{The electromagnetic
|
|
calorimeter}\label{the-electromagnetic-calorimeter}}
|
|
|
|
The electromagnetic calorimeter measures the energy of photons and
|
|
electrons. It is made of tungstate crystal and photodetectors. When
|
|
passed by particles, the crystal produces light in proportion to the
|
|
particle's energy. This light is measured by the photodetectors that
|
|
convert this scintillation light to an electrical signal. To measure a
|
|
particles energy, it has to leave its whole energy in the ECAL, which is
|
|
true for photons and electrons, but not for other particles such as
|
|
hadrons and muons. Those have are of higher energy and therefore only
|
|
leave some energy in the ECAL but are not stopped by it.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{the-hadronic-calorimeter}{%
|
|
\subsubsection{The hadronic
|
|
calorimeter}\label{the-hadronic-calorimeter}}
|
|
|
|
The hadronic calorimeter (HCAL) is used to detect high energy hadronic
|
|
particles. It surrounds the ECAL and is made of alternating layers of
|
|
active and absorber material. While the absorber material with its high
|
|
density causes the hadrons to shower, the active material then detects
|
|
those showers and measures their energy, similar to how the ECAL works.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{the-solenoid}{%
|
|
\subsubsection{The solenoid}\label{the-solenoid}}
|
|
|
|
The solenoid, giving the detector its name, is one of the most important
|
|
features. It creates a magnetic field of 3.8 T and therefore makes it
|
|
possible to measure momentum of charged particles by bending their
|
|
tracks.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{the-muon-system}{%
|
|
\subsubsection{The muon system}\label{the-muon-system}}
|
|
|
|
Outside of the solenoid there is only the muon system. It consists of
|
|
three types of gas detectors, the drift tubes, cathode strip chambers
|
|
and resistive plate chambers. It covers a total of \(0 < |\eta| < 2.4\).
|
|
The muons are the only detected particles, that can pass all the other
|
|
systems without a significant energy loss.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{the-trigger-system}{%
|
|
\subsubsection{The Trigger system}\label{the-trigger-system}}
|
|
|
|
The CMS features a two level trigger system. It is necessary because the
|
|
detector is unable to process all the events due to limited bandwidth.
|
|
The Level 1 trigger reduces the event rate from 40 MHz to 100 kHz, the
|
|
software based High Level trigger is then able to further reduce the
|
|
rate to 1 kHz. The Level 1 trigger uses the data from the
|
|
electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters as well as the muon chambers
|
|
to decide whether to keep an event. The High Level trigger uses a
|
|
streamlined version of the CMS offline reconstruction software for its
|
|
decision making.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{the-particle-flow-algorithm}{%
|
|
\subsubsection{The Particle Flow
|
|
algorithm}\label{the-particle-flow-algorithm}}
|
|
|
|
The particle flow algorithm is used to identify and reconstruct all the
|
|
particles arising from the proton - proton collision by using all the
|
|
information available from the different sub-detectors of the CMS. It
|
|
does so by extrapolating the tracks through the different calorimeters
|
|
and associating clusters they cross with them. The set of the track and
|
|
its clusters is then no more used for the detection of other particles.
|
|
This is first done for muons and then for charged hadrons, so a muon
|
|
can't give rise to a wrongly identified charged hadron. Due to
|
|
Bremsstrahlung photon emission, electrons are harder to reconstruct. For
|
|
them a specific track reconstruction algorithm is used. After
|
|
identifying charged hadrons, muons and electrons, all remaining clusters
|
|
within the HCAL correspond to neutral hadrons and within ECAL to
|
|
photons. If the list of particles and their corresponding deposits is
|
|
established, it can be used to determine the particles four momenta.
|
|
From that, the missing transverse energy can be calculated and tau
|
|
particles can be reconstructed by their decay products.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{jet-clustering}{%
|
|
\subsection{Jet clustering}\label{jet-clustering}}
|
|
|
|
Because of the hadronisation it is not possible to uniquely identify the
|
|
originating particle of a jet. Nonetheless, several algorithms exist to
|
|
help with this problem. The algorithm used in this thesis is the
|
|
anti-\(k_t\) clustering algorithm. It arises from a generalization of
|
|
several other clustering algorithms, namely the \(k_t\),
|
|
Cambridge/Aachen and SISCone clustering algorithms.
|
|
|
|
The anti-\(k_t\) clustering algorithm associates hard particles with
|
|
their soft particles surrounding them within a radius
|
|
\(R = \sqrt{\eta^2 - \phi^2}\) in the \(\eta\) - \(\phi\) plane forming
|
|
cone like jets. If two jets overlap, the jets shape is changed according
|
|
to its hardness in regards to the transverse momentum. A softer
|
|
particles jet will change its shape more than a harder particles. A
|
|
visual comparison of four different clustering algorithms can be seen in
|
|
fig.~\ref{fig:antiktcomparison}. For this analysis, a radius of 0.8 is
|
|
used.
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, to approximate the mass of a heavy particle that caused a
|
|
jet, the softdropmass can be used. It is calculated by removing wide
|
|
angle soft particles from the jet to counter the effects of
|
|
contamination from initial state radiation, underlying event and
|
|
multiple hadron scattering. It therefore is more accurate in determining
|
|
the mass of a particle causing a jet than taking the mass of all
|
|
constituent particles of the jet combined.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\hypertarget{fig:antiktcomparison}{%
|
|
\centering
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/antikt-comparision.png}
|
|
\caption{Comparison of the \(k_t\), Cambridge/Aachen, SISCone and
|
|
anti-\(k_t\) algorithms clustering a sample parton-level event with many
|
|
random soft \enquote{ghosts}. Taken from
|
|
\autocite{ANTIKT}}\label{fig:antiktcomparison}
|
|
}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
Fig.~\ref{fig:antiktcomparison} shows, that the jets reconstructed using
|
|
the anti-\(k_t\) algorithm have the clearest cone like shape and is
|
|
therefore chosen for this thesis.
|
|
|
|
\newpage
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{sec:moa}{%
|
|
\section{Method of analysis}\label{sec:moa}}
|
|
|
|
This section gives an overview over how the data gathered by the LHC and
|
|
CMS is going to be analysed to be able to either exclude the q* particle
|
|
to even higher masses than already done or maybe confirm its existence.
|
|
|
|
As described in sec.~\ref{sec:qs}, the decay of the q* particle to a
|
|
quark and a vector boson with the vector boson then decaying
|
|
hadronically will be investigated. This is the second most probable
|
|
decay of the q* particle and easier to analyse than the dominant decay
|
|
to a quark and a gluon. Therefore it is a good choice for this research.
|
|
The decay q* \(\rightarrow\) qV + q \(\rightarrow q\bar{q}\) + q results
|
|
in two jets, because the decay products of the heavy vector boson are
|
|
highly boosted, causing them to be very close together and therefore be
|
|
reconstructed as one jet. The dijet invariant mass of those two jets,
|
|
which is identical to the mass of the q* particle, is reconstructed. The
|
|
only background considered is the QCD background described in
|
|
sec.~\ref{sec:qcdbg}. A selection using different kinematic variables as
|
|
well as a tagger to identify jets from the decay of a vector boson is
|
|
introduced to reduce the background and increase the sensitivity for the
|
|
signal. After that, it will be looked for a peak in the dijet invariant
|
|
mass distribution at the resonance mass of the q* particle.
|
|
|
|
The data studied were collected by the CMS experiment in the years 2016,
|
|
2017 and 2018. They are analysed with the Particle Flow algorithm to
|
|
reconstruct jets and all the other particles forming during the
|
|
collision. The jets are then clustered using the anti-\(k_t\) algorithm
|
|
with the distance parameter R being 0.8.
|
|
|
|
The analysis will be conducted with two different sets of data. First,
|
|
only the data collected by CMS in 2016 will be used to compare the
|
|
results to the previous analysis \autocite{PREV_RESEARCH}. Then the
|
|
combined data from 2016, 2017 and 2018 will be used to improve the
|
|
previously set limits for the mass of the q* particle. Also, two
|
|
different V-tagging mechanisms will be used to compare their
|
|
performance. One based on the N-subjettiness variable used in the
|
|
previous research \autocite{PREV_RESEARCH}, the other being a novel
|
|
approach using a deep neural network, that will be explained in the
|
|
following.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{signal-and-background-modelling}{%
|
|
\subsection{Signal and Background
|
|
modelling}\label{signal-and-background-modelling}}
|
|
|
|
To make sure the setup is working as intended, at first simulated
|
|
samples of background and signal are used. In those Monte Carlo
|
|
simulations, the different particle interactions that take place in a
|
|
proton - proton collision are simulated using the probabilities provided
|
|
by the Standard Model by calculating the cross sections of the different
|
|
feynman diagrams. Later on, also detector effects (like its limited
|
|
resolution) are applied to make sure, they look like real data coming
|
|
from the CMS detector. The q* signal samples are simulated by the
|
|
probabilities given by the q* theory \autocite{QSTAR_THEORY} and
|
|
assuming a cross section of \(\SI{1}{\per\pico\barn}\). The simulation
|
|
was done using MadGraph. Because of the expected high mass, the signal
|
|
width will be dominated by the resolution of the detector, not by the
|
|
natural resonance width.
|
|
|
|
The dijet invariant mass distribution of the QCD background is expected
|
|
to smoothly fall with higher masses. It is therefore fitted using the
|
|
following smooth falling function with three parameters p0, p1, p2:
|
|
\begin{equation}
|
|
\frac{dN}{dm_{jj}} = \frac{p_0 \cdot ( 1 - m_{jj} / \sqrt{s} )^{p_2}}{ (m_{jj} / \sqrt{s})^{p_1}}
|
|
\end{equation} Whereas \(m_{jj}\) is the invariant mass of the dijet and
|
|
\(p_0\) is a normalisation parameter. It is the same function as used in
|
|
the previous research studying 2016 data only.
|
|
|
|
The signal is fitted using a double sided crystal ball function. It has
|
|
six parameters:
|
|
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\tightlist
|
|
\item
|
|
mean: the functions mean, in this case the resonance mass
|
|
\item
|
|
sigma: the functions width, in this case the resolution of the
|
|
detector
|
|
\item
|
|
n1, n2, alpha1, alpha2: parameters influencing the shape of the left
|
|
and right tail
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
A gaussian and a poisson function have also been studied but found to be
|
|
not able to reproduce the signal shape as they couldn't model the tails
|
|
on both sides of the peak.
|
|
|
|
An example of a fit of these functions to a toy dataset with gaussian
|
|
errors can be seen in fig.~\ref{fig:cb_fit}. In this figure, a binning
|
|
of 200 GeV is used. For the actual analysis a 1 GeV binning will be
|
|
used. It can be seen that the fit works very well and therefore confirms
|
|
the functions chosen to model signal and background. This is supported
|
|
by a \(\chi^2 /\) ndof of 0.5 and a found mean for the signal at 2999
|
|
\(\pm\) 23 \(\si{\giga\eV}\) which is extremely close to the expected
|
|
3000 GeV mean. Those numbers clearly show that the method in use is able
|
|
to successfully describe the data.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\hypertarget{fig:cb_fit}{%
|
|
\centering
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/cb_fit.pdf}
|
|
\caption{Combined fit of signal and background on a toy dataset with
|
|
gaussian errors and a simulated resonance mass of 3
|
|
TeV.}\label{fig:cb_fit}
|
|
}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
\newpage
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{preselection-and-data-quality}{%
|
|
\section{Preselection and data
|
|
quality}\label{preselection-and-data-quality}}
|
|
|
|
To reduce the background and increase the signal sensitivity, a
|
|
selection of events by different variables is introduced. It is divided
|
|
into two stages. The first one (the preselection) adds some general
|
|
physics motivated selection using kinematic variables and is also used
|
|
to make sure a good trigger efficiency is achieved. In the second part,
|
|
different taggers will be used as a discriminator between QCD background
|
|
and signal events. After the preselection, it is made sure, that the
|
|
simulated samples represent the real data well by comparing the data
|
|
with the simulation in the signal as well as a sideband region, where no
|
|
signal events are expected.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{preselection}{%
|
|
\subsection{Preselection}\label{preselection}}
|
|
|
|
First, all events are cleaned of jets with a
|
|
\(p_t < \SI{200}{\giga\eV}\) and a pseudorapidity \(|\eta| > 2.4\). This
|
|
is to discard soft background and to make sure the particles are in the
|
|
barrel region of the detector for an optimal track reconstruction.
|
|
Furthermore, all events with one of the two highest \(p_t\) jets having
|
|
an angular separation smaller than 0.8 from any electron or muon are
|
|
discarded to allow future use of the results in studies of the semi or
|
|
all-leptonic decay channels.
|
|
|
|
From a decaying q* particle, we expect two jets in the endstate. The
|
|
dijet invariant mass of those two jets will be used to reconstruct the
|
|
mass of the q* particle. Therefore a cut is added to have at least 2
|
|
jets. More jets are also possible, for example caused by gluon radiation
|
|
of a quark causing another jet. If this is the case, the two jets with
|
|
the highest \(p_t\) are used for the reconstruction of the q* mass. The
|
|
distributions of the number of jets before and after the selection can
|
|
be seen in fig.~\ref{fig:njets}.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/2016/v1_Cleaner_N_jets_stack.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/2016/v1_Njet_N_jets_stack.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/combined/v1_Cleaner_N_jets_stack.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/combined/v1_Njet_N_jets_stack.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\caption{Number of jet distribution showing the cut at number of jets $\ge$ 2. Left: distribution before the cut. Right:
|
|
distribution after the cut. 1st row: data from 2016. 2nd row: combined data from 2016, 2017 and 2018. The signal curves
|
|
are amplified by a factor of 10,000, to be visible.}
|
|
\label{fig:njets}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
The next selection is done using \(\Delta\eta = |\eta_1 - \eta_2|\),
|
|
with \(\eta_1\) and \(\eta_2\) being the \(\eta\) of the first two jets
|
|
in regards to their transverse momentum. The q* particle is expected to
|
|
be very heavy in regards to the center of mass energy of the collision
|
|
and will therefore be almost stationary. Its decay products should
|
|
therefore be close to back to back, which means the \(\Delta\eta\)
|
|
distribution is expected to peak at 0. At the same time, particles
|
|
originating from QCD effects are expected to have a higher
|
|
\(\Delta\eta\) as they mainly form from less heavy resonances. To
|
|
maintain comparability, the same selection as in previous research of
|
|
\(\Delta\eta \le 1.3\) is used. A comparison of the \(\Delta\eta\)
|
|
distribution before and after the selection can be seen in
|
|
fig.~\ref{fig:deta}.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/2016/v1_Njet_deta_stack.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/2016/v1_Eta_deta_stack.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/combined/v1_Njet_deta_stack.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/combined/v1_Eta_deta_stack.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\caption{$\Delta\eta$ distribution showing the cut at $\Delta\eta \le 1.3$. Left: distribution before the cut. Right:
|
|
distribution after the cut. 1st row: data from 2016. 2nd row: combined data from 2016, 2017 and 2018. The signal curves
|
|
are amplified by a factor of 10,000, to be visible.}
|
|
\label{fig:deta}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
The last selection in the preselection is on the dijet invariant mass:
|
|
\(m_{jj} \ge \SI{1050}{\giga\eV}\). It is important for a high trigger
|
|
efficiency and can be seen in fig.~\ref{fig:invmass}. Also, it has a
|
|
huge impact on the background because it usually consists of way lighter
|
|
particles. The q* on the other hand is expected to have a very high
|
|
invariant mass of more than 1 TeV. The \(m_{jj}\) distribution should be
|
|
a smoothly falling function for the QCD background and peak at the
|
|
simulated resonance mass for the signal events.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/2016/v1_Eta_invMass_stack.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/2016/v1_invmass_invMass_stack.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/combined/v1_Eta_invMass_stack.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/combined/v1_invmass_invMass_stack.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\caption{Invariant mass distribution showing the cut at $m_{jj} \ge \SI{1050}{\giga\eV}$. It shows the expected smooth
|
|
falling functions of the background whereas the signal peaks at the simulated resonance mass.
|
|
Left: distribution before the
|
|
cut. Right: distribution after the cut. 1st row: data from 2016. 2nd row: combined data from 2016, 2017 and 2018.}
|
|
\label{fig:invmass}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
After the preselection, the signal efficiency for q* decaying to qW of
|
|
2016 ranges from 48 \% for 1.6 TeV to 49 \% for 7 TeV. Decaying to qZ,
|
|
the efficiencies are between 45 \% (1.6 TeV) and 50 \% (7 TeV). The
|
|
amount of background after the preselection is reduced to 5 \% of the
|
|
original events. For the combined data of the three years those values
|
|
look similar. Decaying to qW signal efficiencies between 49 \% (1.6 TeV)
|
|
and 56 \% (7 TeV) are reached, wheres the efficiencies when decaying to
|
|
qZ are in the range of 46 \% (1.6 TeV) to 50 \% (7 TeV). Here, the
|
|
background could be reduced to 8 \% of the original events. So while
|
|
keeping around 50 \% of the signal, the background was already reduced
|
|
to less than a tenth. Still, as can be seen in fig.~\ref{fig:njets} to
|
|
fig.~\ref{fig:invmass}, the amount of signal is very low.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{data---monte-carlo-comparison}{%
|
|
\subsection{Data - Monte Carlo
|
|
Comparison}\label{data---monte-carlo-comparison}}
|
|
|
|
To ensure high data quality, the simulated QCD background sample is now
|
|
being compared to the actual data of the corresponding year collected by
|
|
the CMS detector. This is done for the year 2016 and for the combined
|
|
data of years 2016, 2017 and 2018. The distributions are rescaled so the
|
|
integral over the invariant mass distribution of data and simulation are
|
|
the same. In fig.~\ref{fig:data-mc}, the three distributions of the
|
|
variables that were used for the preselection can be seen for year 2016
|
|
and the combined data of years 2016 to 2018. For analysing the real data
|
|
from the CMS, jet energy corrections have to be applied. Those are to
|
|
calibrate the ECAL and HCAL parts of the CMS, so the energy of the
|
|
detected particles can be measured correctly. The corrections used were
|
|
published by the CMS group. {[}source needed, but not sure where to find
|
|
it{]}
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.33\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/2016/DATA/v1_invmass_N_jets.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.33\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/2016/DATA/v1_invmass_deta.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.33\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/2016/DATA/v1_invmass_invMass.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.33\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/combined/DATA/v1_invmass_N_jets.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.33\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/combined/DATA/v1_invmass_deta.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.33\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/combined/DATA/v1_invmass_invMass.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\caption{Comparision of data with the Monte Carlo simulation.
|
|
1st row: data from 2016.
|
|
2nd row: combined data from 2016, 2017 and 2018.}
|
|
\label{fig:data-mc}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
The shape of the real data matches the simulation well. The
|
|
\(\Delta\eta\) distributions shows some offset between data and
|
|
simulation.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{sideband}{%
|
|
\subsubsection{Sideband}\label{sideband}}
|
|
|
|
The sideband is introduced to make sure no bias in the data and Monte
|
|
Carlo simulation is introduced. It is a region in which no signal event
|
|
is expected. Again, data and the Monte Carlo simulation are compared.
|
|
For this analysis, the region where the softdropmass of both of the two
|
|
jets with the highest transverse momentum (\(p_t\)) is more than 105 GeV
|
|
was chosen. 105 GeV is well above the mass of 91 GeV of the Z boson, the
|
|
heavier vector boson. Therefore it is very unlikely that a particle
|
|
heavier than t In fig.~\ref{fig:sideband}, the comparison of data with
|
|
simulation in the sideband region can be seen for the softdropmass
|
|
distribution as well as the dijet invariant mass distribution. As in
|
|
{[}fig:data-mc{]}, the histograms are rescaled, so that the dijet
|
|
invariant mass distributions of data and simulation have the same
|
|
integral. It can be seen, that in the sideband region data and
|
|
simulation match very well.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/2016/sideband/v1_SDM_SoftDropMass_1.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/2016/sideband/v1_SDM_invMass.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/combined/sideband/v1_SDM_SoftDropMass_1.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/combined/sideband/v1_SDM_invMass.eps}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\caption{Comparison of data with the Monte Carlo simulation in the sideband region. 1st row: data from 2016. 2nd row:
|
|
combined data from 2016, 2017 and 2018.}
|
|
\label{fig:sideband}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
\newpage
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{jet-substructure-selection}{%
|
|
\section{Jet substructure selection}\label{jet-substructure-selection}}
|
|
|
|
So far it was made sure, that the actual data and the simulation are in
|
|
good agreement after the preselection and no unwanted side effects are
|
|
introduced in the data by the used cuts. Now another selection has to be
|
|
introduced, to further reduce the background to be able to extract the
|
|
hypothetical signal events from the actual data.
|
|
|
|
This is done by distinguishing between QCD and signal events using a
|
|
tagger to identify jets coming from a vector boson. Two different
|
|
taggers will be used to later compare their performance. The decay
|
|
analysed includes either a W or Z boson, which are, compared to the
|
|
particles in QCD effects, very heavy. This can be used by adding a cut
|
|
on the softdropmass of a jet. The softdropmass of at least one of the
|
|
two leading jets is expected to be within \(\SI{35}{\giga\eV}\) and
|
|
\(\SI{105}{\giga\eV}\). This cut already provides a good separation of
|
|
QCD and signal events, on which the two taggers presented next can
|
|
build.
|
|
|
|
Both taggers provide a discriminator value to choose whether an event
|
|
originates in the decay of a vector boson or from QCD effects. This
|
|
value will be optimized afterwards to make sure the maximum efficiency
|
|
possible is achieved.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{n-subjettiness}{%
|
|
\subsection{N-Subjettiness}\label{n-subjettiness}}
|
|
|
|
The N-subjettiness \autocite{TAU21} \(\tau_N\) is a jet shape parameter
|
|
designed to identify boosted hadronically-decaying objects. When a
|
|
vector boson decays hadronically, it produces two quarks each causing a
|
|
jet. But because of the high mass of the vector bosons, the particles
|
|
are highly boosted and appear, after applying a clustering algorithm, as
|
|
just one. This algorithm now tries to figure out, whether one jet might
|
|
consist of two subjets by using the kinematics and positions of the
|
|
constituent particles of this jet. The N-subjettiness is defined as
|
|
|
|
\begin{equation} \tau_N = \frac{1}{d_0} \sum_k p_{T,k} \cdot \text{min}\{ \Delta R_{1,k}, \Delta R_{2,k}, …, \Delta
|
|
R_{N,k} \} \end{equation}
|
|
|
|
with k going over the constituent particles in a given jet, \(p_{T,k}\)
|
|
being their transverse momenta and
|
|
\(\Delta R_{J,k} = \sqrt{(\Delta\eta)^2 + (\Delta\phi)^2}\) being the
|
|
distance of a candidate subjet J and a constituent particle k in the
|
|
\(\eta\) - \(\phi\) plane. It quantifies to what degree a jet can be
|
|
regarded as a jet composed of \(N\) subjets. Experiments showed, that
|
|
rather than using \(\tau_N\) directly, the ratio
|
|
\(\tau_{21} = \tau_2/\tau_1\) is a better discriminator between QCD
|
|
events and events originating from the decay of a boosted vector boson.
|
|
|
|
The lower the \(\tau_{21}\) is, the more likely a jet is caused by the
|
|
decay of a vector boson. Therefore a selection will be introduced, so
|
|
that \(\tau_{21}\) of one candidate jet is smaller then some value that
|
|
will be determined by an optimization process described in the next
|
|
chapter. As candidate jet the one of the two highest \(p_t\) jets
|
|
passing the softdropmass window is used. If both of them pass, the one
|
|
with higher \(p_t\) is chosen.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{deepak8}{%
|
|
\subsection{DeepAK8}\label{deepak8}}
|
|
|
|
The DeepAK8 tagger \autocite{DEEP_BOOSTED} uses a deep neural network
|
|
(DNN) to identify decays originating in a vector boson. It claims to
|
|
reduce the background rate by up to a factor of \textasciitilde10 with
|
|
the same signal efficiency compared to non-machine-learning approaches
|
|
like the N-Subjettiness method. This is supported by
|
|
fig.~\ref{fig:ak8_eff}, showing a comparision of background and signal
|
|
efficiency of the DeepAK8 tagger, with, between others, the
|
|
\(\tau_{21}\) tagger also used in this analysis.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\hypertarget{fig:ak8_eff}{%
|
|
\centering
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth,height=\textheight]{./figures/deep_ak8.pdf}
|
|
\caption{Comparison of tagger efficiencies, showing, between others, the
|
|
DeepAK8 and \(\tau_{21}\) tagger used in this analysis. Taken from
|
|
\autocite{DEEP_BOOSTED}}\label{fig:ak8_eff}
|
|
}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
The DNN has two input lists for each jet. The first is a list of up to
|
|
100 constituent particles of the jet, sorted by decreasing \(p_t\). A
|
|
total of 42 properties of the particles such es \(p_t\), energy deposit,
|
|
charge and the angular momentum between the particle and the jet or
|
|
subjet axes are included. The second input list is a list of up to seven
|
|
secondary vertices, each with 15 features, such as the kinematics,
|
|
displacement and quality criteria. To process those inputs, a customised
|
|
DNN architecture has been developed. It consists of two convolutional
|
|
neural networks that each process one of the input lists. The outputs of
|
|
the two CNNs are then combined and processed by a fully-connected
|
|
network to identify the jet. The network was trained with a sample of 40
|
|
million jets, another 10 million jets were used for development and
|
|
validation.
|
|
|
|
In this thesis, the mass decorrelated version of the DeepAK8 tagger is
|
|
used. It adds an additional mass predictor layer, that is trained to
|
|
quantify how strongly the output of the non-decorrelated tagger is
|
|
correlated to the mass of a particle. Its output is fed back to the
|
|
network as a penalty so it avoids using features of the particles
|
|
correlated to their mass. The result is a largely mass decorrelated
|
|
tagger of heavy resonances. As the mass variable is already in use for
|
|
the softdropmass selection, this version of the tagger is to be
|
|
preferred.
|
|
|
|
The higher the discriminator value of the deep boosted tagger, the more
|
|
likely is the jet to be caused by decay of a vector boson. Therefore,
|
|
using the same way to choose a candidate jet as for the N-subjettiness
|
|
tagger, a selection is applied so that this candidate jet has a
|
|
WvsQCD/ZvsQCD value greater than some value determined by the
|
|
optimization presented next.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{sec:opt}{%
|
|
\subsection{Optimization}\label{sec:opt}}
|
|
|
|
To figure out the best value to cut on the discriminators introduced by
|
|
the two taggers, a value to quantify how good a cut is has to be
|
|
introduced. For that, the significance calculated by
|
|
\(\frac{S}{\sqrt{B}}\) will be used. S stands for the amount of signal
|
|
events and B for the amount of background events in a given interval.
|
|
This value assumes a gaussian error on the background so it will be
|
|
calculated for the 2 TeV masspoint where enough background events exist
|
|
to justify this assumption. It follows from the central limit theorem
|
|
that states, that for identical distributed random variables, their sum
|
|
converges to a gaussian distribution. The significance therefore
|
|
represents how good the signal can be distinguished from the background
|
|
in units of the standard deviation of the background. As interval, a 10
|
|
\% margin around the resonance nominal mass is chosen. The significance
|
|
is then calculated for different selections on the discriminant of the
|
|
two taggers and then plotted in dependence on the minimum resp. maximum
|
|
allowed value of the discriminant to pass the selection for the deep
|
|
boosted resp. the N-subjettiness tagger.
|
|
|
|
The optimization process is done using only the data from year 2018,
|
|
assuming the taggers have similar performances on the data of the
|
|
different years.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/sig-db.pdf}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/sig-tau.pdf}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\caption{Significance plots for the deep boosted (left) and N-subjettiness (right) tagger at the 2 TeV masspoint.}
|
|
\label{fig:sig}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
As a result, the \(\tau_{21}\) cut is placed at \(\le 0.35\), confirming
|
|
the value previous research chose and the deep boosted cut is placed at
|
|
\(\ge 0.95\). For the deep boosted tagger, 0.97 would give a slightly
|
|
higher significance but as it is very close to the edge where the
|
|
significance drops very low and the higher the cut the less background
|
|
will be left to calculate the cross section limits, especially at higher
|
|
resonance masses, the slightly less strict cut is chosen. The
|
|
significance for the \(\tau_{21}\) cut is 14, and for the deep boosted
|
|
tagger 26.
|
|
|
|
For both taggers also a low purity category is introduced for high TeV
|
|
regions. Using the cuts optimized for 2 TeV, there are very few
|
|
background events left for higher resonance masses, but to reliably
|
|
calculate cross section limits, those are needed. As low purity category
|
|
for the N-subjettiness tagger, a cut at \(0.35 < \tau_{21} < 0.75\) is
|
|
used. For the deep boosted tagger the opposite cut from the high purity
|
|
category is used: \(VvsQCD < 0.95\).
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{sec:extr}{%
|
|
\section{Signal extraction}\label{sec:extr}}
|
|
|
|
After the optimization, now the optimal selection for the N-subjettiness
|
|
as well as the deep boosted tagger is found and applied to the simulated
|
|
samples as well as the data collected by the CMS. The fit described in
|
|
sec.~\ref{sec:moa} is performed for all masspoints of the decay to qW
|
|
and qZ and for both datasets used, the one from 2016 und the combined
|
|
one of 2016, 2017 and 2018.
|
|
|
|
To extract the signal from the background, its cross section limit is
|
|
calculated using a frequentist asymptotic limit calculator. It performs
|
|
a shape analysis of the dijet invariant mass spectrum to determine an
|
|
expected and an observed limit. If there's no resonance of the q*
|
|
particle in the data, the observed limit should lie within the
|
|
\(2\sigma\) environment of the expected limit. After that, the crossing
|
|
of the theory line, representing the cross section limits expected, if
|
|
the q* particle would exist, and the observed data is calculated, to
|
|
have a limit of mass up to which the existence of the q* particle can be
|
|
excluded. To find the uncertainty of this result, the crossing of the
|
|
theory line plus, respectively minus, its uncertainty with the observed
|
|
limit is also calculated.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{uncertainties}{%
|
|
\subsection{Uncertainties}\label{uncertainties}}
|
|
|
|
For calculating the cross section of the signal, four sources of
|
|
uncertainties are considered.
|
|
|
|
First, the uncertainty of the Jet Energy Corrections. When measuring a
|
|
particle's energy with the ECAL or HCAL part of the CMS, the electronic
|
|
signals send by the photodetectors in the calorimeters have to be
|
|
converted to actual energy values. Therefore an error in this
|
|
calibration causes the energy measured to be shifted to higher or lower
|
|
values causing also the position of the signal peak in the \(m_{jj}\)
|
|
distribution to vary. The uncertainty is approximated to be 2 \%.
|
|
|
|
Second, the tagger is not perfect and therefore some events, that don't
|
|
originate from a V boson are wrongly chosen and on the other hand
|
|
sometimes events that do originate from one are not. It influences the
|
|
events chose for analysis and is therefore also considered as an
|
|
uncertainty, which is approximated to be 6 \%.
|
|
|
|
Third, the uncertainty of the parameters of the background fit is also
|
|
considered, as it might change the background shape a little and
|
|
therefore influence how many signal and background events are
|
|
reconstructed from the data.
|
|
|
|
Fourth, the uncertainty on the Luminosity of the LHC of 2.5 \% is also
|
|
taken into account for the final results.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{results}{%
|
|
\section{Results}\label{results}}
|
|
|
|
This chapter will start by presenting the results for the data of year
|
|
2016 using both taggers and comparing it to the previous research
|
|
\autocite{PREV_RESEARCH}. It will then go on showing the results for the
|
|
combined dataset, again using both taggers comparing their performances.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{section}{%
|
|
\subsection{2016}\label{section}}
|
|
|
|
Using the data collected by the CMS experiment on 2016, the cross
|
|
section limits seen in fig.~\ref{fig:res2016} were obtained.
|
|
|
|
As described in sec.~\ref{sec:extr}, the calculated cross section limits
|
|
are used to then calculate a mass limit, meaning the lowest possible
|
|
mass of the q* particle, by finding the crossing of the theory line with
|
|
the observed cross section limit. In fig.~\ref{fig:res2016} it can be
|
|
seen, that the observed limit in the region where theory and observed
|
|
limit cross is very high compared to when using the N-subjettiness
|
|
tagger. Therefore the two lines cross earlier, which results in lower
|
|
exclusion limits on the mass of the q* particle causing the deep boosted
|
|
tagger to perform worse than the N-subjettiness tagger in regards of
|
|
establishing those limits as can be seen in tbl.~\ref{tbl:res2016}. The
|
|
table also shows the upper and lower limits on the mass found by
|
|
calculating the crossing of the theory plus resp. minus its uncertainty.
|
|
Due to the theory and the observed limits line being very flat in the
|
|
high TeV region, even a small uncertainty of the theory can cause a high
|
|
difference of the mass limit.
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{tbl:res2016}{}
|
|
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllll@{}}
|
|
\caption{\label{tbl:res2016}Mass limits found using the data collected
|
|
in 2016}\tabularnewline
|
|
\toprule
|
|
Decay & Tagger & Limit {[}TeV{]} & Upper Limit {[}TeV{]} & Lower Limit
|
|
{[}TeV{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endfirsthead
|
|
\toprule
|
|
Decay & Tagger & Limit {[}TeV{]} & Upper Limit {[}TeV{]} & Lower Limit
|
|
{[}TeV{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endhead
|
|
qW & \(\tau_{21}\) & 5.39 & 6.01 & 4.99\tabularnewline
|
|
qW & deep boosted & 4.96 & 5.19 & 4.84\tabularnewline
|
|
qZ & \(\tau_{21}\) & 4.86 & 4.96 & 4.70\tabularnewline
|
|
qZ & deep boosted & 4.49 & 4.61 & 4.40\tabularnewline
|
|
\bottomrule
|
|
\end{longtable}
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/results/brazilianFlag_QtoqW_2016tau_13TeV.pdf}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/results/brazilianFlag_QtoqW_2016db_13TeV.pdf}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/results/brazilianFlag_QtoqZ_2016tau_13TeV.pdf}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/results/brazilianFlag_QtoqZ_2016db_13TeV.pdf}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\caption{Results of the cross section limits for 2016 using the $\tau_{21}$ tagger (left) and the deep boosted tagger
|
|
(right).}
|
|
\label{fig:res2016}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{previous-research}{%
|
|
\subsubsection{Previous research}\label{previous-research}}
|
|
|
|
The limit established by using the N-subjettiness tagger on the 2016
|
|
data is already slightly higher than the one from previous research,
|
|
which was found to be 5 TeV for the decay to qW and 4.7 TeV for the
|
|
decay to qZ. This is mainly due to the fact, that in our data, the
|
|
observed limit at the intersection point happens to be in the lower
|
|
region of the expected limit interval and therefore causing a very late
|
|
crossing with the theory line when using the N-subjettiness tagger (as
|
|
can be seen in fig.~\ref{fig:res2016}). This could be caused by small
|
|
differences of the setup used or slightly differently processed data.
|
|
Comparing the expected limits, there is a difference between 3 \% and 30
|
|
\%, between the values calculated by this thesis compared to the
|
|
previous research. It is not, however, that one of the two results was
|
|
constantly lower or higher but rather fluctuating. Therefore it can be
|
|
said, that the results are in good agreement. The cross section limits
|
|
of the previous research can be seen in fig.~\ref{fig:prev}.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/results/prev_qW.png}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/results/prev_qZ.png}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\caption{Previous results of the cross section limits for q\* decaying to qW (left) and q\* decaying to qZ (right).
|
|
Taken from \cite{PREV_RESEARCH}.}
|
|
\label{fig:prev}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{combined-dataset}{%
|
|
\subsection{Combined dataset}\label{combined-dataset}}
|
|
|
|
Using the combined data, the cross section limits seen in
|
|
fig.~\ref{fig:resCombined} were obtained. The cross section limits are,
|
|
compared to only using the 2016 dataset, almost cut in half. This shows
|
|
the big improvement achieved by using more than three times the amount
|
|
of data.
|
|
|
|
The results for the mass limits of the combined years are as follows:
|
|
|
|
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllll@{}}
|
|
\caption{Mass limits found using the data collected in 2016 -
|
|
2018}\tabularnewline
|
|
\toprule
|
|
Decay & Tagger & Limit {[}TeV{]} & Upper Limit {[}TeV{]} & Lower Limit
|
|
{[}TeV{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endfirsthead
|
|
\toprule
|
|
Decay & Tagger & Limit {[}TeV{]} & Upper Limit {[}TeV{]} & Lower Limit
|
|
{[}TeV{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endhead
|
|
qW & \(\tau_{21}\) & 6.00 & 6.26 & 5.74\tabularnewline
|
|
qW & deep boosted & 6.11 & 6.31 & 5.39\tabularnewline
|
|
qZ & \(\tau_{21}\) & 5.49 & 5.76 & 5.29\tabularnewline
|
|
qZ & deep boosted & 4.92 & 5.02 & 4.80\tabularnewline
|
|
\bottomrule
|
|
\end{longtable}
|
|
|
|
The combination of the three years not just improved the cross section
|
|
limits, but also the limit for the mass of the q* particle. The final
|
|
result is 1 TeV higher for the decay to qW and almost 0.8 TeV higher for
|
|
the decay to qZ than what was concluded by the previous research
|
|
\autocite{PREV_RESEARCH}.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/results/brazilianFlag_QtoqW_Combinedtau_13TeV.pdf}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/results/brazilianFlag_QtoqW_Combineddb_13TeV.pdf}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/results/brazilianFlag_QtoqZ_Combinedtau_13TeV.pdf}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/results/brazilianFlag_QtoqZ_Combineddb_13TeV.pdf}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\caption{Results of the cross section limits for the three combined years using the $\tau_{21}$ tagger (left) and the
|
|
deep boosted tagger (right).}
|
|
\label{fig:resCombined}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{comparison-of-taggers}{%
|
|
\subsection{Comparison of taggers}\label{comparison-of-taggers}}
|
|
|
|
The previously shown results already show, that the deep boosted tagger
|
|
was not able to significantly improve the results compared to the
|
|
N-subjettiness tagger. For further comparison, in
|
|
fig.~\ref{fig:limit_comp} the expected limits of the different taggers
|
|
for the q* \(\rightarrow\) qW and the q* \(\rightarrow\) qZ decay are
|
|
shown. It can be seen, that the deep boosted is at best as good as the
|
|
N-subjettiness tagger. This was not the expected result, as the deep
|
|
neural network was already found to provide a higher significance in the
|
|
optimisation done in sec.~\ref{sec:opt}. The higher significance should
|
|
also result in lower cross section limits. Apparently, doing the
|
|
optimization only on data of the year 2018, was not the best choice. To
|
|
make sure, there is no mistake in the setup, also the expected cross
|
|
section limits using only the high purity category of the two taggers
|
|
with 2018 data are compared in fig.~\ref{fig:comp_2018}. There, the
|
|
cross section limits calculated using the deep boosted tagger are a bit
|
|
lower than with the N-subjettiness tagger, showing, that the method used
|
|
for optimisation was working but should have been applied to the
|
|
combined dataset.
|
|
|
|
Recently, some issues with the training of the deep boosted tagger used
|
|
in this analysis were also found, which might explain, why it didn't
|
|
perform much better in general.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/limit_comp_w.pdf}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
|
|
\includegraphics{./figures/limit_comp_z.pdf}
|
|
\end{minipage}
|
|
\caption{Comparison of expected limits of the different taggers using different datasets. Left: decay to qW. Right:
|
|
decay to qZ}
|
|
\label{fig:limit_comp}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\hypertarget{fig:comp_2018}{%
|
|
\centering
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth,height=\textheight]{./figures/limit_comp_2018.pdf}
|
|
\caption{Comparision of deep boosted and N-subjettiness tagger in the
|
|
high purity category using the data from year
|
|
2018.}\label{fig:comp_2018}
|
|
}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
\clearpage
|
|
\newpage
|
|
|
|
\hypertarget{summary}{%
|
|
\section{Summary}\label{summary}}
|
|
|
|
In this thesis, a limit on the mass of the q* particle has been
|
|
successfully established. By combining the data from the years 2016,
|
|
2017 and 2018, collected by the CMS experiment, the previously set limit
|
|
could be significantly improved.
|
|
|
|
For the data analysis, the following selection was applied:
|
|
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\tightlist
|
|
\item
|
|
\#jets \textgreater= 2
|
|
\item
|
|
\(\Delta\eta < 1.4\)
|
|
\item
|
|
\(m_{jj} >= \SI{1050}{\giga\eV}\)
|
|
\item
|
|
\(\SI{35}{\giga\eV} < m_{SDM} < \SI{105}{\giga\eV}\)
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
For the deep boosted tagger, a high purity category of \(VvsQCD > 0.95\)
|
|
and a low purity category of \(VvsQCD <= 0.95\) was used. For the
|
|
N-subjettiness tagger the high purity category was \(\tau_{21} < 0.35\)
|
|
and the low purity category \(0.35 < \tau_{21} < 0.75\). These values
|
|
were found by optimizing for the highest possible significance of the
|
|
signal.
|
|
|
|
After the selection, the cross section limits were extracted from the
|
|
data and new exclusion limits for the mass of the q* particles set.
|
|
These are 6.1 TeV by analyzing the decay to qW, respectively 5.5 TeV for
|
|
the decay to qZ. Those limits are about 1 TeV higher than the ones found
|
|
in previous research, that found them to be 5 TeV resp. 4.7 TeV.
|
|
|
|
Two different taggers were used to compare the result. The newer deep
|
|
boosted tagger was found to not improve the result over the older
|
|
N-subjettiness tagger. This was rather unexpected but might be caused by
|
|
some training issues, that were identified lately.
|
|
|
|
This research can also be used to test other theories of the q* particle
|
|
that predict its existence at lower masses, than the one used, by
|
|
overlaying the different theory curves in the plots shown in
|
|
fig.~\ref{fig:res2016} and fig.~\ref{fig:resCombined}.
|
|
|
|
The optimization process used to find the optimal values for the
|
|
discriminant provided by the taggers, was found to not be optimal. It
|
|
was only done using 2018 data, with which the deep boosted tagger showed
|
|
a higher significance than the N-subjettiness tagger. Apparently, the
|
|
assumption, that the same optimization would apply to the data of the
|
|
other years as well, did not hold. Using the combined dataset, the deep
|
|
boosted tagger showed no better cross section limits than the
|
|
N-subjettiness tagger, which are directly related to the significance
|
|
used for the optimization. Therefore, with a better optimization and the
|
|
fixed training issues of the deep boosted tagger, it is very likely,
|
|
that the result presented could be further improved.
|
|
|
|
\newpage
|
|
|
|
\nocite{*}
|
|
|
|
\printbibliography
|
|
|
|
\newpage
|
|
\hypertarget{appendix}{%
|
|
\section*{Appendix}\label{appendix}}
|
|
|
|
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllll@{}}
|
|
\caption{Cross Section limits using 2016 data and the N-subjettiness
|
|
tagger for the decay to qW}\tabularnewline
|
|
\toprule
|
|
Mass {[}TeV{]} & Exp. limit {[}pb{]} & Upper limit {[}pb{]} & Lower
|
|
limit {[}pb{]} & Obs. limit {[}pb{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endfirsthead
|
|
\toprule
|
|
Mass {[}TeV{]} & Exp. limit {[}pb{]} & Upper limit {[}pb{]} & Lower
|
|
limit {[}pb{]} & Obs. limit {[}pb{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endhead
|
|
1.6 & 0.10406 & 0.14720 & 0.07371 & 0.08165\tabularnewline
|
|
1.8 & 0.07656 & 0.10800 & 0.05441 & 0.04114\tabularnewline
|
|
2.0 & 0.05422 & 0.07605 & 0.03879 & 0.04043\tabularnewline
|
|
2.5 & 0.02430 & 0.03408 & 0.01747 & 0.04052\tabularnewline
|
|
3.0 & 0.01262 & 0.01775 & 0.00904 & 0.02109\tabularnewline
|
|
3.5 & 0.00703 & 0.00992 & 0.00502 & 0.00399\tabularnewline
|
|
4.0 & 0.00424 & 0.00603 & 0.00300 & 0.00172\tabularnewline
|
|
4.5 & 0.00355 & 0.00478 & 0.00273 & 0.00249\tabularnewline
|
|
5.0 & 0.00269 & 0.00357 & 0.00211 & 0.00240\tabularnewline
|
|
6.0 & 0.00103 & 0.00160 & 0.00068 & 0.00062\tabularnewline
|
|
7.0 & 0.00063 & 0.00105 & 0.00039 & 0.00086\tabularnewline
|
|
\bottomrule
|
|
\end{longtable}
|
|
|
|
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllll@{}}
|
|
\caption{Cross Section limits using 2016 data and the deep boosted
|
|
tagger for the decay to qW}\tabularnewline
|
|
\toprule
|
|
Mass {[}TeV{]} & Exp. limit {[}pb{]} & Upper limit {[}pb{]} & Lower
|
|
limit {[}pb{]} & Obs. limit {[}pb{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endfirsthead
|
|
\toprule
|
|
Mass {[}TeV{]} & Exp. limit {[}pb{]} & Upper limit {[}pb{]} & Lower
|
|
limit {[}pb{]} & Obs. limit {[}pb{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endhead
|
|
1.6 & 0.17750 & 0.25179 & 0.12572 & 0.38242\tabularnewline
|
|
1.8 & 0.11125 & 0.15870 & 0.07826 & 0.11692\tabularnewline
|
|
2.0 & 0.08188 & 0.11549 & 0.05799 & 0.09528\tabularnewline
|
|
2.5 & 0.03328 & 0.04668 & 0.02373 & 0.03653\tabularnewline
|
|
3.0 & 0.01648 & 0.02338 & 0.01181 & 0.01108\tabularnewline
|
|
3.5 & 0.00840 & 0.01195 & 0.00593 & 0.00683\tabularnewline
|
|
4.0 & 0.00459 & 0.00666 & 0.00322 & 0.00342\tabularnewline
|
|
4.5 & 0.00276 & 0.00412 & 0.00190 & 0.00366\tabularnewline
|
|
5.0 & 0.00177 & 0.00271 & 0.00118 & 0.00401\tabularnewline
|
|
6.0 & 0.00110 & 0.00175 & 0.00071 & 0.00155\tabularnewline
|
|
7.0 & 0.00065 & 0.00108 & 0.00041 & 0.00108\tabularnewline
|
|
\bottomrule
|
|
\end{longtable}
|
|
|
|
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllll@{}}
|
|
\caption{Cross Section limits using 2016 data and the N-subjettiness
|
|
tagger for the decay to qZ}\tabularnewline
|
|
\toprule
|
|
Mass {[}TeV{]} & Exp. limit {[}pb{]} & Upper limit {[}pb{]} & Lower
|
|
limit {[}pb{]} & Obs. limit {[}pb{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endfirsthead
|
|
\toprule
|
|
Mass {[}TeV{]} & Exp. limit {[}pb{]} & Upper limit {[}pb{]} & Lower
|
|
limit {[}pb{]} & Obs. limit {[}pb{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endhead
|
|
1.6 & 0.08687 & 0.12254 & 0.06174 & 0.06987\tabularnewline
|
|
1.8 & 0.06719 & 0.09477 & 0.04832 & 0.03424\tabularnewline
|
|
2.0 & 0.04734 & 0.06640 & 0.03405 & 0.03310\tabularnewline
|
|
2.5 & 0.01867 & 0.02619 & 0.01343 & 0.03214\tabularnewline
|
|
3.0 & 0.01043 & 0.01463 & 0.00744 & 0.01773\tabularnewline
|
|
3.5 & 0.00596 & 0.00840 & 0.00426 & 0.00347\tabularnewline
|
|
4.0 & 0.00353 & 0.00500 & 0.00250 & 0.00140\tabularnewline
|
|
4.5 & 0.00233 & 0.00335 & 0.00164 & 0.00181\tabularnewline
|
|
5.0 & 0.00157 & 0.00231 & 0.00110 & 0.00188\tabularnewline
|
|
6.0 & 0.00082 & 0.00126 & 0.00054 & 0.00049\tabularnewline
|
|
7.0 & 0.00050 & 0.00083 & 0.00031 & 0.00066\tabularnewline
|
|
\bottomrule
|
|
\end{longtable}
|
|
|
|
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllll@{}}
|
|
\caption{Cross Section limits using 2016 data and deep boosted tagger
|
|
for the decay to qZ}\tabularnewline
|
|
\toprule
|
|
Mass {[}TeV{]} & Exp. limit {[}pb{]} & Upper limit {[}pb{]} & Lower
|
|
limit {[}pb{]} & Obs. limit {[}pb{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endfirsthead
|
|
\toprule
|
|
Mass {[}TeV{]} & Exp. limit {[}pb{]} & Upper limit {[}pb{]} & Lower
|
|
limit {[}pb{]} & Obs. limit {[}pb{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endhead
|
|
1.6 & 0.16687 & 0.23805 & 0.11699 & 0.35999\tabularnewline
|
|
1.8 & 0.12750 & 0.17934 & 0.09138 & 0.12891\tabularnewline
|
|
2.0 & 0.09062 & 0.12783 & 0.06474 & 0.09977\tabularnewline
|
|
2.5 & 0.03391 & 0.04783 & 0.02422 & 0.03754\tabularnewline
|
|
3.0 & 0.01781 & 0.02513 & 0.01277 & 0.01159\tabularnewline
|
|
3.5 & 0.00949 & 0.01346 & 0.00678 & 0.00741\tabularnewline
|
|
4.0 & 0.00494 & 0.00711 & 0.00349 & 0.00362\tabularnewline
|
|
4.5 & 0.00293 & 0.00429 & 0.00203 & 0.00368\tabularnewline
|
|
5.0 & 0.00188 & 0.00284 & 0.00127 & 0.00426\tabularnewline
|
|
6.0 & 0.00102 & 0.00161 & 0.00066 & 0.00155\tabularnewline
|
|
7.0 & 0.00053 & 0.00085 & 0.00034 & 0.00085\tabularnewline
|
|
\bottomrule
|
|
\end{longtable}
|
|
|
|
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllll@{}}
|
|
\caption{Cross Section limits using the combined data and the
|
|
N-subjettiness tagger for the decay to qW}\tabularnewline
|
|
\toprule
|
|
Mass {[}TeV{]} & Exp. limit {[}pb{]} & Upper limit {[}pb{]} & Lower
|
|
limit {[}pb{]} & Obs. limit {[}pb{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endfirsthead
|
|
\toprule
|
|
Mass {[}TeV{]} & Exp. limit {[}pb{]} & Upper limit {[}pb{]} & Lower
|
|
limit {[}pb{]} & Obs. limit {[}pb{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endhead
|
|
1.6 & 0.05703 & 0.07999 & 0.04088 & 0.03366\tabularnewline
|
|
1.8 & 0.03953 & 0.05576 & 0.02833 & 0.04319\tabularnewline
|
|
2.0 & 0.02844 & 0.03989 & 0.02045 & 0.04755\tabularnewline
|
|
2.5 & 0.01270 & 0.01781 & 0.00913 & 0.01519\tabularnewline
|
|
3.0 & 0.00658 & 0.00923 & 0.00473 & 0.01218\tabularnewline
|
|
3.5 & 0.00376 & 0.00529 & 0.00269 & 0.00474\tabularnewline
|
|
4.0 & 0.00218 & 0.00309 & 0.00156 & 0.00114\tabularnewline
|
|
4.5 & 0.00132 & 0.00188 & 0.00094 & 0.00068\tabularnewline
|
|
5.0 & 0.00084 & 0.00122 & 0.00060 & 0.00059\tabularnewline
|
|
6.0 & 0.00044 & 0.00066 & 0.00030 & 0.00041\tabularnewline
|
|
7.0 & 0.00022 & 0.00036 & 0.00014 & 0.00043\tabularnewline
|
|
\bottomrule
|
|
\end{longtable}
|
|
|
|
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllll@{}}
|
|
\caption{Cross Section limits using the combined data and the deep
|
|
boosted tagger for the decay to qW}\tabularnewline
|
|
\toprule
|
|
Mass {[}TeV{]} & Exp. limit {[}pb{]} & Upper limit {[}pb{]} & Lower
|
|
limit {[}pb{]} & Obs. limit {[}pb{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endfirsthead
|
|
\toprule
|
|
Mass {[}TeV{]} & Exp. limit {[}pb{]} & Upper limit {[}pb{]} & Lower
|
|
limit {[}pb{]} & Obs. limit {[}pb{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endhead
|
|
1.6 & 0.06656 & 0.09495 & 0.04698 & 0.12374\tabularnewline
|
|
1.8 & 0.04281 & 0.06141 & 0.03001 & 0.05422\tabularnewline
|
|
2.0 & 0.03297 & 0.04650 & 0.02363 & 0.04658\tabularnewline
|
|
2.5 & 0.01328 & 0.01868 & 0.00950 & 0.01109\tabularnewline
|
|
3.0 & 0.00650 & 0.00917 & 0.00464 & 0.00502\tabularnewline
|
|
3.5 & 0.00338 & 0.00479 & 0.00241 & 0.00408\tabularnewline
|
|
4.0 & 0.00182 & 0.00261 & 0.00129 & 0.00127\tabularnewline
|
|
4.5 & 0.00107 & 0.00156 & 0.00074 & 0.00123\tabularnewline
|
|
5.0 & 0.00068 & 0.00102 & 0.00046 & 0.00149\tabularnewline
|
|
6.0 & 0.00038 & 0.00060 & 0.00024 & 0.00034\tabularnewline
|
|
7.0 & 0.00021 & 0.00035 & 0.00013 & 0.00046\tabularnewline
|
|
\bottomrule
|
|
\end{longtable}
|
|
|
|
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllll@{}}
|
|
\caption{Cross Section limits using the combined data and the
|
|
N-subjettiness tagger for the decay to qZ}\tabularnewline
|
|
\toprule
|
|
Mass {[}TeV{]} & Exp. limit {[}pb{]} & Upper limit {[}pb{]} & Lower
|
|
limit {[}pb{]} & Obs. limit {[}pb{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endfirsthead
|
|
\toprule
|
|
Mass {[}TeV{]} & Exp. limit {[}pb{]} & Upper limit {[}pb{]} & Lower
|
|
limit {[}pb{]} & Obs. limit {[}pb{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endhead
|
|
1.6 & 0.05125 & 0.07188 & 0.03667 & 0.02993\tabularnewline
|
|
1.8 & 0.03547 & 0.04989 & 0.02551 & 0.03614\tabularnewline
|
|
2.0 & 0.02523 & 0.03539 & 0.01815 & 0.04177\tabularnewline
|
|
2.5 & 0.01059 & 0.01485 & 0.00761 & 0.01230\tabularnewline
|
|
3.0 & 0.00576 & 0.00808 & 0.00412 & 0.01087\tabularnewline
|
|
3.5 & 0.00327 & 0.00460 & 0.00234 & 0.00425\tabularnewline
|
|
4.0 & 0.00190 & 0.00269 & 0.00136 & 0.00097\tabularnewline
|
|
4.5 & 0.00119 & 0.00168 & 0.00084 & 0.00059\tabularnewline
|
|
5.0 & 0.00077 & 0.00110 & 0.00054 & 0.00051\tabularnewline
|
|
6.0 & 0.00039 & 0.00057 & 0.00026 & 0.00036\tabularnewline
|
|
7.0 & 0.00019 & 0.00031 & 0.00013 & 0.00036\tabularnewline
|
|
\bottomrule
|
|
\end{longtable}
|
|
|
|
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllll@{}}
|
|
\caption{Cross Section limits using the combined data and deep boosted
|
|
tagger for the decay to qZ}\tabularnewline
|
|
\toprule
|
|
Mass {[}TeV{]} & Exp. limit {[}pb{]} & Upper limit {[}pb{]} & Lower
|
|
limit {[}pb{]} & Obs. limit {[}pb{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endfirsthead
|
|
\toprule
|
|
Mass {[}TeV{]} & Exp. limit {[}pb{]} & Upper limit {[}pb{]} & Lower
|
|
limit {[}pb{]} & Obs. limit {[}pb{]}\tabularnewline
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\endhead
|
|
1.6 & 0.07719 & 0.10949 & 0.05467 & 0.14090\tabularnewline
|
|
1.8 & 0.05297 & 0.07493 & 0.03752 & 0.06690\tabularnewline
|
|
2.0 & 0.03875 & 0.05466 & 0.02768 & 0.05855\tabularnewline
|
|
2.5 & 0.01512 & 0.02126 & 0.01080 & 0.01160\tabularnewline
|
|
3.0 & 0.00773 & 0.01088 & 0.00554 & 0.00548\tabularnewline
|
|
3.5 & 0.00400 & 0.00565 & 0.00285 & 0.00465\tabularnewline
|
|
4.0 & 0.00211 & 0.00301 & 0.00149 & 0.00152\tabularnewline
|
|
4.5 & 0.00118 & 0.00172 & 0.00082 & 0.00128\tabularnewline
|
|
5.0 & 0.00073 & 0.00108 & 0.00050 & 0.00161\tabularnewline
|
|
6.0 & 0.00039 & 0.00060 & 0.00025 & 0.00036\tabularnewline
|
|
7.0 & 0.00021 & 0.00034 & 0.00013 & 0.00045\tabularnewline
|
|
\bottomrule
|
|
\end{longtable}
|
|
|
|
\end{document}
|