Juliette Alimena: Okay, great. So welcome everyone to the Fcc Lop meeting.
Juliette Alimena: I just have a couple of slides of news, and then we will get to Mark's presentation
Juliette Alimena: whoops.
Juliette Alimena: Okay, right? So probably you've seen it.
Juliette Alimena: But I thought it was nice, so that I would I would highlight it. There was a joint U.S.A. Cern statement that's been issued at least out as of like April 20, sixth or so. And basically it says.
Juliette Alimena: should the Cern Member States determine that the Fcc. Is likely to be the Cern's next world. Leading research facility. Following the high luminosity, Lc. United States intends to collaborate on its construction, and physics like exploitation subject to appropriate domestic approvals. So basically, this is a seems to be a fairly strong statement from from the Us. Government saying, we'll be involved in Fcc.
Juliette Alimena: And you know, this is the the email that that Patrick sent around. So I invite you to check out this link if you wanted to know the details.
Juliette Alimena: But that's, I think, a good. I think it's good news for for the Fcc.
Juliette Alimena: Then I stole a few slides from the recent, from from Rebecca, who gave the the news at the recent
Juliette Alimena: at the meeting about the the Lp focus topic there. There was a round table.
Juliette Alimena: Hmm
Juliette Alimena: earlier this week, I think.
Juliette Alimena: But I I think it's relevant for for us. So I'll repeat some of slides. So the process for updating the European strategy for particle physics happening now, and the deadline for the written report will be March 30, first 2025
Juliette Alimena: to conclude the whole thing in June 2026,
Juliette Alimena: right? And this is what was input you know, the contributions for the 2020 strategy update.
Juliette Alimena: And I, here's a link to Rebecca's slides where I've made this this screenshot and also this slide from Rebecca.
Juliette Alimena: so
Juliette Alimena: next steps. But of course it's it's not final. The list of topics to be included in the the final report and are included here, including Lps as a focus topic.
Juliette Alimena: The preliminary list was presented, mid-may finalized by mid-june
Juliette Alimena: and the deadline for this, I think, is the the biggest news that or the the thing to be most aware of. The deadline for new results will be a third X for Higgs workshop, which is going to be in Paris in in October
Juliette Alimena: and the link that is not clickable is there? But I've got a clickable link for you on the on the next slides, so this can be a milestone also for for us. So have October and Paris in in mind.
Juliette Alimena: and in particular. This is a list of
Juliette Alimena: recent past and upcoming events. So the first was this extra meeting that took place on the 20 ninth that I was just talking about. The recording is on the on the agenda in case you missed it like me. Unfortunately. This is clearly really relevant to to all of us. So please check out the slides and and or the recording if you weren't there.
Juliette Alimena: Then next in the in the timeline is today. So we will hear at this meeting an update for for mark on his comparison of the idea and the Cld. Design with the exotic Higgs
Juliette Alimena: as benchmark.
Juliette Alimena: The next one of these meetings is likely to be in 2 weeks on May sixteenth, on on Thursday, as usual.
Juliette Alimena: So we have a tentative contribution. Lined up for for then and there's space for about one more contribution. So if you think it'll be ready to show something by May sixteenth, please let me know.
Juliette Alimena: And then the usual thing.
Juliette Alimena: the list that I have of things happening in the future, notably Fcc. Week in San Francisco in in June tenth, through the fourteenth
Juliette Alimena: and the the third Ecva Higgs factory workshop that I just mentioned in October, and other things as well, of course.
Juliette Alimena: Reminder that
Juliette Alimena: we want these to be these meetings to be working meetings. So present your work, even if it's in progress when so please, basically, just send me an email. If you're ready. If you are thinking you'll you'll be ready soon to to present something. And we we can schedule it. Okay, I think that's all, I had any questions for me.
Juliette Alimena: Jeremy.
Jeremy Andrea: Hi! Hi! Everyone. Hi! Juliet!
Jeremy Andrea: maybe naive questions. So the the I understand the schedule. It's it's relatively tight, in fact. And I'm wondering how this this will be organized among the Fcc community. Let's say we have some contributions. We want to
Jeremy Andrea: to submit. Is there? Is there any? Ho! How will it be coordinated among us?
Juliette Alimena: For the.
Jeremy Andrea: And so.
Juliette Alimena: Extra. Oh, yeah.
Jeremy Andrea: Oh, yes, I think it's.
Juliette Alimena: Yes.
Jeremy Andrea: Yeah.
Juliette Alimena: I think it's best to talk to Rebecca directly about that, and I see she's actually now connected
Juliette Alimena: up.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Yes, I am. Let me let me put my program
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: camera. There we go.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: So the answer, the short answer for this is that we don't know yet. So as far as I understand the so the main input will be coordinated centrally. Yeah, ekfa, right?
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: But how extra wants to gather input is still not fully describe, as you presented it very well, and from the side of Fcc. I have not gotten any official way of doing so. I think the suggestion is like, yes, let's move it.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Let's let's try to get work like that can be ready in the time of the party's worship.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: And let's let's wait for somebody to tell us exactly. They want any kind of format or anything. But I I would just
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: do the work, and eventually we will figure out how this is gonna be put together. Yakumo. I don't know if you have any more information that I do, because myself, I'm a little bit at a loss at this point.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Think it's all a little bit.
Giacomo Polesello: No way.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: In the air.
Giacomo Polesello: Of course, the an important thing was the meeting you had a couple of days ago.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Yes.
Giacomo Polesello: Well.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: No, that was yeah.
Giacomo Polesello: Well, indeed, we were taking taking stock of
Giacomo Polesello: and actually, we are mostly for Fcc, basically, we are particularly from Fcc, the the.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Yes.
Giacomo Polesello: The the the abstracts. So that was a a nice milestone, I think, but of clearly there is additional
Giacomo Polesello: the the.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: It will be.
Giacomo Polesello: I guess there is space to additional. But then the procedure? I don't. I have no clue yet.
micheleselvaggi: Maybe maybe I can say something. So.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Then you will make a little less.
micheleselvaggi: So the the the, I think, first, that there is a the deadline which is missing, which is the the first draft of the feasibility. Study, report for Fcc. This is the internal
micheleselvaggi: documented, that summary document that we have to produce for the for the Spc.
micheleselvaggi: And which coincides more or less with the Ecf. Deadlines.
micheleselvaggi: and in terms of Ecpha.
micheleselvaggi: As far as I, I don't think anything has been decided yet, because there has not even been a
micheleselvaggi: secretary that was nominated. But I recall the last strategy. The way this worked is very different from.
micheleselvaggi: or at least the way used to work is very different from the
micheleselvaggi: from from this nomas process, for example, because there are at least there were convenience for every subgroups that were nominated
micheleselvaggi: by the secretary of the of the strategy.
micheleselvaggi: And and these conveners were taking care of gathering the inputs from the various.
micheleselvaggi: the future facilities
micheleselvaggi: that were pertinent to their to their working group.
micheleselvaggi: And and these groups were
micheleselvaggi: producing a
micheleselvaggi: Summary and presentations that were presented in Granada at the time
micheleselvaggi: then served as an input to the final
micheleselvaggi: strategy document. I don't know if this time will be the same, but this is how it worked. Last time.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Yeah, was on the.
micheleselvaggi: I don't think I I don't think we have to send the individual abstracts to the strategy. I think what what we have to do as Fcc. Is, produce notes
micheleselvaggi: for the studies that can also, then, if they are properly reviewed, sent to archive or journals.
micheleselvaggi: these notes are referenced in the feas in the final feasibility study report.
micheleselvaggi: And then these notes and the feasibility study report will serve as input for Ekpha.
micheleselvaggi: You know, this is the way I understand it. Of course these things can change, and maybe they will decide that this strategy will be different, and they want to emulate more like there's no mass process. I don't know.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Yeah, I don't know. I mean, there has been some discussion, but not I mean, it's it's through the second that it will be appointed in June. Right? So we will see what happens then. It doesn't seem to be enough time to do briefing books like they were done in the past. So it's a little bit unclear.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: So, however, now that you mentioned.
micheleselvaggi: The briefing book was produced after Granada in.
micheleselvaggi: or you mean, like the individual reports of the various groups.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: I mean, the briefing book was at the end, the input, I mean, it was after Granada. But it's the input of the of the.
micheleselvaggi: But this this, yeah, but this will happen, let's say, after June, and next year.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: I will see.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: But yeah.
micheleselvaggi: Or whatever will be the the, would be Granada.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Yeah.
micheleselvaggi: Okay. So it's good.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Yeah, from my cell. Yeah.
micheleselvaggi: But but but before that, the the convenience of the various subgroup, and probably there will be a Bsm
micheleselvaggi: or IP group. They will try to gather from
micheleselvaggi: from us, from cube, from young collide, or whatever the.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Can you call either? If not, yeah.
micheleselvaggi: Okay, or what whatever? I don't know. Yeah, maybe not people either. But let's say, of any future facility, they will try to gather the public input and summarize them at the meeting by first producing a summary document themselves and then summarizing them. At least this is what happened last time.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Yeah, this is this is like, if if the the focus topic up there knowledge article is organized by the ones that are coordinating the searches group within the Xa working group one blah blah blah. And this is this is myself.
micheleselvaggi: Yeah. But this is not even clear that it will be the same people actually, because.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: We don't know how this is gonna be done. That is the thing.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: So we'll see.
Jeremy Andrea: Okay, thank you. in practice. Because October is is almost tomorrow morning.
Jeremy Andrea: Yeah, I think so. My my takeaway would be to have some
Jeremy Andrea: notes, whatever way of publishing it is
Jeremy Andrea: ready a little bit before the Paris workshop. Well, actually, much before, because.
micheleselvaggi: The the notes. If it has to be referenced for the final study, it has to be ready by September. Let's say.
Jeremy Andrea: Yeah, that's yeah. Yeah. That that would what I was about to say September as a target for having some sort of final document to share among us. First, I guess
Jeremy Andrea: whatever is the use of it after actually, indeed, for the
Jeremy Andrea: or the feasibility report is is something that we need to provide, I guess, anyway.
micheleselvaggi: Yeah. But if you want the study to be referenced in the final report, it has to be ready by, let's say, order. September. Yes.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: I see this kind of dates will be useful to have them like as soon as possible, to be able to work in that direction.
micheleselvaggi: Well, I mean 30. The 30 of September is already the the deadline for the
micheleselvaggi: V 0 version of the draft
micheleselvaggi: or the feasibility study report this. This doesn't mean that it's when we will submit it to the
micheleselvaggi: so we will submit it to the Spc. I believe in November in December.
micheleselvaggi: So there will be time to edit all these studies until
micheleselvaggi: December. But our internal deadline for circulating the the draft of the feasibility. Study report is end of September.
micheleselvaggi: So ideally, the the notes that would serve as input to the start, to the to the report would have to be ready by then.
micheleselvaggi: or even before that. Yes.
micheleselvaggi: coconut.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Our notes Miguel, the we've been noticing already, like in the in the Round Table, that our notes that are done for us input for the meter record. They are not public.
Juliette Alimena: For.
micheleselvaggi: But this is that there will be, there will be, there will be.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Okay.
micheleselvaggi: Will be made public. Of course they will have to be, because they will be.
micheleselvaggi: They will be referenced in the, in, the, in the report.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Alright, that's that's good to know, because it's a thing that
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: yeah.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: it will be already good to have them. By the way, since I mentioned. Sorry for hijacking this whole thing. But since I mentioned the the midterm report, do you know when it's gonna be made public.
micheleselvaggi: It is public.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: This is already public.
Juliette Alimena: Public, public, to everyone.
micheleselvaggi: Yes, it was. It was. It was even advertised in the big
micheleselvaggi: Seminar by Christoph and Mikhail Benedict, etc. I think
micheleselvaggi: there is. There is.
Juliette Alimena: I thought it was still only internal to people who have actually worked on it.
micheleselvaggi: No, no, no, I think it's public domain, unless I'm really.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Okay, if you if you have the.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: if you could send us the.
micheleselvaggi: Find the link. Yes, I will find it while you, while you keep going with meetings.
Juliette Alimena: That'd be great.
Juliette Alimena: Maybe just 1 one other thing, Michael. Maybe some of these dates, and the plan can be clarified in the next physics and performance meeting.
micheleselvaggi: Sure that will be. Actually. They have been already mentioned in the last, each meeting, because there has been no. Since these dates were decided there has been no
micheleselvaggi: be a fixed performance meeting, but you can find them in the in the last ex. So we made the presentation in the in the intro. Where these dates are, there.
Juliette Alimena: Great
micheleselvaggi: Also send you the link to this.
Juliette Alimena: That'd be great, because I I know I I don't have the time to attend the Higgs meetings. Sorry about that.
micheleselvaggi: Sure.
Juliette Alimena: Okay.
Juliette Alimena: So any other questions
Juliette Alimena: on the news
Juliette Alimena: or comments?
Juliette Alimena: I think
Juliette Alimena: we should move on, indeed, at Mark, whenever you're ready.
Mark Larson: Okay, let me share my screen.
Mark Larson: Can you see this? All right.
Juliette Alimena: A.
Mark Larson: And something walking in. But okay.
Mark Larson: yeah, I mean.
Juliette Alimena: So you can. Okay, there we go.
Mark Larson: Okay.
Mark Larson: yeah. So I'll be giving an updates on this idea versus cld, detector card comparison, which is again using the exotic study as a baseline and specifically giving an updates on the effects of reducing this tracker hit requirements in the Cld detector card
Mark Larson: and then I'll also give a small updates. On the second sort of extension of the original analysis that we are working on, which is incorporating theronic decays of these that goes on into the signal as well.
Mark Larson: So I'll start with a bit of a recap from the last talk I gave it the meeting about a month ago. So reminder the signal process this analysis is looking at
Mark Larson: is targeting the ZH production stage with this following signal process in which our long loop particles come from this exotic boson decay.
Mark Larson: and this provides us with the following experimental signatures, this, reconstructed that boson from a pair of electrons or muons
Mark Larson: and notably displaced vertices, or ideally displaced vertices from the B pairs coming from each of these longer scalar particle decays
Mark Larson: and so for the signal generation notably for this detector card comparison generated new cld samples using this cld like Alfie's card.
Mark Larson: which is the winter. 2023 idea card with the tracker geometry replaced by the cob tracker. Geometry.
Mark Larson: And the idea samples are used from the original analysis. And these are using the winter 2023 idea, the Lp's card as well. And so we have 6 separate sample or signal points generated, based on this very scalar mass and mixing angle.
Mark Larson: So, looking at 20 gev. And 60 gev.
Mark Larson: And then this mixing angle sign of theta from 20 negative, 5 to 20 negative 7. Which, generates these different mean proper lifetimes, which will, of course, be important in reconstructing the displaced vertices which are used for this event selection.
Mark Larson: And so regarding the event selection we have these following cuts. First, this pre selection, which is
Mark Larson: selecting for greater than equal to 2 reconstructed, obsolete, charged electrons and muons and then a z boson tag looking at the invariant mass of these reconstructed leptons and then, most importantly, this multiplicity of displaced vertices so selecting for greater than equal to 2 reconstructed displaced vertices
Mark Larson: and I'll note that this final cuts fully rejects the background. Events coming from the Wwz and Zh processes
Mark Larson: right here.
Mark Larson: So as I mentioned, we want to compare the idea and Cob detector cards or the effects of regenerating our samples with these. So I'll mention just quickly the main differences between the idea and Clb tracking so the
Mark Larson: idea detector uses this drift tube which notably has a hundred 12 layers, and has a similar coverage from
Mark Larson: radius of about 0 to 2 meters, and Z from about 0 to 2 meters as well
Mark Larson: so similar to cld as well.
Mark Larson: However, the clb has these actual silicon layers. So about 6 layers in the sort of barrel
Mark Larson: area, and about 7, I guess. Disks in this lower end cap area, and then 4 disks in the sort of upper, I guess. Ncap area and as well. They both have these silicon vertex detectors in sort of the prompt area.
Mark Larson: So I'll show now the preliminary results that I showed in the meeting about a month ago.
Mark Larson: So in the top, we have the idea results again from the original analysis in which we see sensitivity to 4 of the different signal points
Mark Larson: and then the cob results. We see, interestingly, a loss in sensitivity for this 20 gb, 20 negative, 6
Mark Larson: or C. Tau, about 340
Mark Larson: signal points losing from 37 to now 6 events which is significant decline.
Mark Larson: and we entirely lose sensitivity based on this definition of greater than 3 events being sensitive and less than 3 events being not sensitive. For the 60 Gev. Morning negative, 7 signal points with the C. Tau of 87 70
Mark Larson: going from 6.5 events to point 8 events. So
Mark Larson: we wanted to investigate why this was. And so to look at this, we really wanted to look at the tracking performance, because again, this final cut is on the number of displaced vertices reconstructed.
Mark Larson: So the sort of hypothesis was that these displays for the seas weren't being reconstructed for Cld.
Mark Larson: And so to see why that was we looked at the number of tracks being reconstructed for each event.
Mark Larson: And on the left here. I show the results for this signal points which we saw the greatest decline in sensitivity.
Mark Larson: And we see that you see of these samples there was significantly less tracks being reconstructed on average, for each event.
Mark Larson: However, for one of the samples which saw there is similar sensitivity, and notably has a shorter decay length. Here
Mark Larson: we saw a very similar number of reconstructed tracks for each events on average. So
Mark Larson: to sort of further look at this, to see whether this is an issue with the track reconstruction, or it's something at the sort of detector level response.
Mark Larson: We also looked at the difference in the total tracker hits across all 10,000 events for our signal.
Mark Larson: And this is looking at again this signal points which lost a significant amount of sensitivity, and we see, indeed, that the Clb sample had significantly less tracker hits So
Mark Larson: this is sort of indicating again that this is at the detector level response.
Mark Larson: And so as to why this is. This will be now sort of moving into new results.
Mark Larson: We found that this Cld Detector card contains a minimum number of hits required to accept the track.
Mark Larson: and by default this is set 6. And so, because of the C of the geometry.
Mark Larson: in which, for example, in the sort of barrel area you have 6 total layers.
Mark Larson: This high hit requirements means that many displaced tracks which are decaying somewhere in the middle of the detector may not pass through 6 of the different layers, and so
Mark Larson: won't be accepted to the track, and hence won't be able to reconstruct the display vertex, and then the loose signal sense to be
Mark Larson: so. We want to look at how changing this to either 5 or 4
Mark Larson: affects the tracking performance, and hence eventually a signal set statement.
Mark Larson: And so to do this, we regenerated new Cld samples notably using the same unweighted physics events for each of these signal points, using the minimum number of hits change to either 4 or 5, and so I'll show some results of the difference in tracking and displace vertex reconstruction performance for the C. Tau 90 and 20 to 40 millimetre signal points.
Mark Larson: So, beginning with this, C. Tau.
Mark Larson: 87.7 or scalar mass. 6 E. Gev sine theta equals tenny negative, 6 or 10 to power. Negative 6 point we see in green. Here is our original Clb results with a minimum number of hits being equal to 6 and in blue, we have this change to 5, and then in red change to 4,
Mark Larson: and for this signal point we see really only slight improvements in
Mark Larson: the total number of hits which I have listed here.
Mark Larson: And notably a larger improvement from 6 to 5, and then a bit of a smaller improvement from 5 to 4,
Mark Larson: and for looking at how this actually affect the number of tracks being reconstructed. Now we similarly see a somewhat slight improvements, with the mean tracks being increased
Mark Larson: by about 2 from this minimum number of hits being 6 to 5,
Mark Larson: and then by about some other one from 5 to 4. Here.
Mark Larson: man.
Mark Larson: And now, looking at how this affects the displaced vertex reconstruction.
Mark Larson: we see again a similar really slight increase from 6 to 5, from a mean number of displaced vertices per events of 3.5 4 to 3.7 5,
Mark Larson: and then again a another slight increase from 3.7 5 to 3.8.
Mark Larson: And now to sort of compare this with a longer decay. Length, sample. I'll show the results for the see how it goes. 342. Millimeter
Mark Larson: or scalar. Mass. 20 gev. And sine theta, one E negative, 6
Mark Larson: signal points.
Mark Larson: So here, going from 6 to 5 and 5 to 4, we see a significantly larger improvement in the total number of tracker hits here.
Mark Larson: and notably see a significant improvement outside of the kind of inner silicon vertex detector region as well.
Mark Larson: With a significant increase in the number of hits. That's presumably these different layer points here.
Mark Larson: So this is a really promising result in terms of supporting our hypothesis. As we see
Mark Larson: even a 2 times increase in the total number of tracker hits from the 6 minimum to 4 minimum.
Mark Larson: And so similarly, we see a really huge increase in the number of tracks as well.
Mark Larson: Starting from a mean number of tracks per events at about 7 improving to again around 2 times to 14 here
Mark Larson: and so now, from originally having about 4,000 events, which are only constructing, presumably the
Mark Larson: tracks from the Z. But was on the K. Electron mu unpaired.
Mark Larson: We now have only about 1,200 or so events which are only reconstructing the electron and one which are decaying promptly, I guess so
Mark Larson: again, any significant improvements.
Mark Larson: and we see again similar results, or the number of displaced vertices reconstructed
Mark Larson: in which we have originally 6,000 events which, don't have any displaced vertices reconstructed.
Mark Larson: and this is then reduced to 2,000, and we see a similar improvement in
Mark Larson: the number of displaced vertices being greater than equal to 2, which, again, is important, as this is our final cut
Mark Larson: being done.
Mark Larson: and so, looking at the mean number of displays we're to see prevents, we see an increase by about a factor of 3 times as well, which is even greater than the tracking performance increase. I guess
Mark Larson: so. I'll now present the signal sensitivities. Looking at the final cut efficiencies and the final number of events selected for all 6 of our sample points.
Mark Larson: So, as was presented in the meeting about a month ago, we saw this significant decline from the idea to
Mark Larson: original cl, in which we have this minimum number of hits being equal to 6.
Mark Larson: However, looking at the final cut efficiencies or the minimum hits being 5 or 4, we see
Mark Larson: really drastic improvements, especially for the signal points that had originally lost a lot of sensitivity.
Mark Larson: So, for example, this 20 Gev. 20 negative 6 points which dropped from 67% to about 11%
Mark Larson: is increased back up to about 40 or 44% for this sample with the minimum number of hits me before.
Mark Larson: And similarly, for the 60 gev. 20, negative, 7 sample which saw this decline from about 40% to 5%.
Mark Larson: This is increased back up to about 18%.
Mark Larson: And so, looking at the final event selected
Mark Larson: for this 20 Gb. Winning negative, 6 sample. This corresponds to an increase from 6 events to 24 events.
Mark Larson: and for the 60 gev. Wanting negative sample, 20 negative, 7. Sample an increase in point 8 events to 2.9 9 events so
Mark Larson: unfortunately just below the threshold, for how we define our sensitivity.
Mark Larson: but nonetheless a good increase.
Mark Larson: and even notably for the 20 Gev. Wanting negative, 5 and 60 gev. Wanting negative 6 samples.
Mark Larson: We actually see that the cod samples with the minimum number of hits being equal to 4
Mark Larson: has even slightly higher efficiency than the original idea samples as well.
Mark Larson: So with that, I'll summarize this petrol car comparison. Now. So again, we saw a really significant improvements in
Mark Larson: both to track and displace vertex reconstruction or setting the minimum number, if it's been 4, 5 in the cod card.
Mark Larson: And this was especially more noticeable, for the notably longer mean decay. Time samples in which we
Mark Larson: expect to see the scalar particles sticking somewhere in the middle of the detector, really and notably after the layer, one in
Mark Larson: Cld Detector.
Mark Larson: And so this corresponded to a significant improvements again, in the signal yield for all of our samples relative to at least the original Cld. Samples
Mark Larson: with again the expected events, even slightly exceeding the idea card for 2 of the samples.
Mark Larson: and as well for the final CPU 87 70 sample
Mark Larson: since duty was not regained. That was just on the border. At this 2.9 9 events. We still
Mark Larson: see the significant improvements. And then for
Mark Larson: the other 2 single points which saw a significant decline between Id and Cld.
Mark Larson: we saw a really large increase in the signal efficiency again, about 4 times relative to the
Mark Larson: original C of the results for the minimum, it's being equal to 4.
Mark Larson: So with that, I guess I want to kind of ask the question, what further studies or possible track parameters
Mark Larson: do we want to investigate?
Mark Larson: to continue looking at this issue again with the
Mark Larson: tracking performance for displaced signals and the displays for text from construction. And cl.
Mark Larson: and I guess we can go back to this question if anyone has thoughts on this. But I'll now transition to
Mark Larson: talking again about this second extension extension of the original analysis that we wanted to do, which
Mark Larson: was, Oh, I see. Jeremy raised a hand.
Mark Larson: this week.
Jeremy Andrea: Sorry is now the good moment for making comments or questions on the.
Mark Larson: Yeah, I told you. Prison.
Jeremy Andrea: Oh.
Jeremy Andrea: that, that's that's super interesting study. I, I have.
Jeremy Andrea: okay, I have maybe a couple of comments more than questions, but also reflecting a little bit my ignorance of what's inside the first simulation.
Jeremy Andrea: So we kind of redo I I don't know about Id what's inside the first simulation or
Jeremy Andrea: with gal. We are working on cld full simulation, and we
Jeremy Andrea: indeed observed that the tracking parameters, so
Jeremy Andrea: the parameters of the conformal tracking have to be retuned
Jeremy Andrea: for displace vertices. Otherwise the there is a huge loss of efficiency with a displacement
Jeremy Andrea: in. How does it work in the first simulation? It's it's the same algorithm that is run on
Jeremy Andrea: passing data, or it's a different one. I'm sorry I should probably know that. But.
micheleselvaggi: Maybe I can comment this. It's a it is not a conformal tracking is a pure
micheleselvaggi: track fitting without.
micheleselvaggi: Well, first, there is no pattern recognition. It's all.
Jeremy Andrea: Mostly.
micheleselvaggi: It's all Mcd driven.
micheleselvaggi: and it's just track fitting. Now. It should be equivalent to conformal tracking, because conformal tracking is simply a transformation.
micheleselvaggi: But I mean, it's it's simple.
Jeremy Andrea: So it's really pure selection of the track that make the inefficiency nothing to do with the reconstruction in.
micheleselvaggi: Well, yes, of course there is no fake tracks. If is this what you're asking.
Jeremy Andrea: No, no, no, I mean, I mean, yeah, we we lose. We lose actually some tracks, not because of locking, maybe not. Only we will for sure. Check this for for hit selection in full seam. No, we we lose track because pat on recognition is is failing.
Jeremy Andrea: at some point
Jeremy Andrea: the wind? Yeah.
micheleselvaggi: You. You are in Fulsima here, I think.
Jeremy Andrea: In full in full seam in full seam. I mean, yeah, yeah. That's why I I ask. So this you don't have. So I guess it's it's only selection and fitting.
micheleselvaggi: Ye. Yes, it's it's just that, you know. These place tracks will will produce only a few numbers, a given number of hits
micheleselvaggi: because they decay. I mean.
Jeremy Andrea: Yeah, yeah.
micheleselvaggi: Like up years later.
micheleselvaggi: You don't have any. Yeah inefficiency due to the fact that you have to look for the seats
micheleselvaggi: cause you will have a trade off, because if you request only for East, then the
micheleselvaggi: the fake will increase will increase. I would say that the next thing to check is, how much.
micheleselvaggi: how many such tracks you you would get from a from a background. For example.
micheleselvaggi: what did you.
Jeremy Andrea: Oh!
micheleselvaggi: See with Delphis also.
Jeremy Andrea: Yes, I I guess it's heavily depending on the model behind. Because, okay, if you have a jets it will be, of course, messier than
Jeremy Andrea: got a pair of leptons.
Jeremy Andrea: computing time also increase.
Jeremy Andrea: Oh, if you relax this because there is more combinatorics. Okay? In case you have factor recognition here that you have not, or you should probably see. No, no difference.
Jeremy Andrea: okay, okay, thank you.
Mark Larson: Yeah, I I did think it would be interesting to regenerate this. The backgrounds with the Cld card and see if the number of displays. Vertices
Mark Larson: increases.
Mark Larson: however, because for the idea sample, for example, we do have full background rejection, selecting for grades and go to 2 displaced vertices.
Mark Larson: I don't think we would expect to see anymore for our backgrounds in this case, but.
micheleselvaggi: Can you remind me how you how you do displace versus? So the displays? Vertexing is not something which is
micheleselvaggi: provided by the office. So it's something you do in the CC. Analysis, or.
Mark Larson: Yeah.
micheleselvaggi: You know what I don't.
Mark Larson: Include the details here. I I guess maybe Magda could probably answer this better than I could. But
Mark Larson: there's a few different selections on the tracks, I believe. And then I I think, greater than equal to one Gv. For pt.
Mark Larson: And requiring the d. 0 to be between 4 and 2,000 at least.
Mark Larson: And then, yeah, this, this, this place for text reconstruction algorithm is
Mark Larson: implemented in the Fcc analysis framework.
micheleselvaggi: But it's a pure.
Magdalena Vande Voorde: Being.
micheleselvaggi: Yes. Sorry go ahead.
Magdalena Vande Voorde: Lcv. I plus Aldgrad the Sv. Final
Magdalena Vande Voorde: that's implemented in the Fcc. Analysis.
micheleselvaggi: Okay. Okay.
Magdalena Vande Voorde: With soundtrack selection.
micheleselvaggi: Yeah. Now, I remember, okay, okay.
micheleselvaggi: so you're really, it's it's it's it's a proper
micheleselvaggi: vertex finding and fitting algorithm. Yes.
Magdalena Vande Voorde: Exactly.
micheleselvaggi: Ken.
Mark Larson: Thank you. Yeah.
Mark Larson: Nope.
Jeremy Andrea: Maybe your suggestion or question you. Is there a possibility for you to to have the efficiency calculated rather than them? Looking at the number of tracks, so you can spot efficiency as function of the position of the efficiency of the tracks. As much of the position of the simulated vertex position.
Mark Larson: Yeah, that that would be interesting. I'm not sure
Mark Larson: how exactly we would get the tracking efficiency
Mark Larson: if this is already
Mark Larson: implemented somewhere.
Mark Larson: But in in indeed, that would be thing to see.
Jeremy Andrea: With a simple con matching. Probably it's it's good enough at the first step. If if there is not too much attract multiplicity.
Jeremy Andrea: 35. Yeah.
Jeremy Andrea: I don't. I think we we have something
Jeremy Andrea: and I need to check, but it's again for full simulation, so I don't know if it applies. There.
micheleselvaggi: Well, you you can do that. There is a you are using Fcc analysis or stand alone. Fcc.
Jeremy Andrea: No exit scenarios. Yes.
micheleselvaggi: I mean this study here that's shown here in zoom, in zoom.
Jeremy Andrea: Sorry.
Mark Larson: Yeah, yeah, this is using the Fcc analysis here.
micheleselvaggi: Cause. You have a reference in the office of the, and I believe you have it also.
micheleselvaggi: There you have a reference to the
micheleselvaggi: the Monte Carlo article of it.
micheleselvaggi: of every of every constructed particle. So this would make it easy to
micheleselvaggi: to check the efficiency.
micheleselvaggi: Yeah.
Mark Larson: Okay.
Mark Larson: yeah, that that sounds like a good further study to do. Then.
micheleselvaggi: And actually, in Standalone Delphas, you have a
micheleselvaggi: a tool called. There is a suite called Validation Report, where
micheleselvaggi: where these these plots are are produced directly for you.
micheleselvaggi: I can point you to the place where you but you have to simulate and generate. You have to generate the samples in
micheleselvaggi: Standalone office for doing this.
micheleselvaggi: But I think it's easy to do, because you can just play with the number of its minimum required hits and just
micheleselvaggi: see how the how the curves change. You don't have to rip.
micheleselvaggi: recompute them yourself.
Mark Larson: Yeah. The the Cld samples, I guess, were generated with the standalone fee. So I I believe
Mark Larson: that can be used then.
Mark Larson: So I guess I'll continue with the.
Juliette Alimena: Sorry. Nope.
Juliette Alimena: first I since we've already paused here. Are there other questions on this first part of Mark's talk? I had a few actually still.
Juliette Alimena: but others first.
Juliette Alimena: Okay, maybe. Then I I jump in. Well, the first one was maybe a minor curiosity on on Slide 13, when?
Juliette Alimena: you should. Just the sorry, can you? Thanks. I was curious how, for example, the red curve here with with 4 minimum hits compares to the idea detector like, are we? How many tracker hits overall? Are we.
Mark Larson: Almost like.
Juliette Alimena: Cld. Versus idea.
Mark Larson: Let me see. So
Mark Larson: yeah, but this is the same sample. I don't think I have the total
Mark Larson: number, but
Mark Larson: I believe, if I remember correctly, it was still significantly more for ideas. Something like 700,000.
Mark Larson: Okay,
Mark Larson: relative to yeah, 420,000 a year.
Mark Larson: But I I can follow up the exact number that's.
Juliette Alimena: No, I it was
Juliette Alimena: me, being curious, not looking for an exact number.
Mark Larson: The peak, I guess, was at 70,000. If we go back here.
Juliette Alimena: That's right.
Mark Larson: 70,000. So yeah, I believe it's still significantly more for ideal.
Mark Larson: It's sort of a smoother curve as well. And see, there's not these kind of peaks at the layers, I suppose, for.
Juliette Alimena: Yeah, I was. Gonna say, I assume, let's do to the geometry.
Mark Larson: Yeah.
Juliette Alimena: Okay, and my other thought was
Juliette Alimena: that, yeah, I think it'd be interesting to look at this for for background, because I mean, if if the idea is to.
Juliette Alimena: maybe it's not worth it. But but if the idea is to convince people that maybe for Cld fast, and we want to have 4 or 5 min hits rather than 6. Then we will need to show them how many more fakes we're we're getting. So
Juliette Alimena: I think you, you should look at the background as well, and and also to get your overall sensitivity. You need both. You know the signal and the background. So I think it'd be interesting to see how this changes the background as well.
Mark Larson: Yeah, that that is
Mark Larson: part of the issue. In that we don't actually have the Clb background samples. So we don't
Mark Larson: really have the background rejection efficiencies. They were just sort of assumed to be 0%. But
Mark Larson: maybe that's not fair, something to make. Yeah.
Juliette Alimena: I'm sorry. Can you remind me why we don't have the Cld background samples.
Mark Larson: the. I don't believe there's any centrally generated.
Mark Larson: so you'll be background samples for these WWZ. Or Zh. Processes.
Mark Larson: Background.
Mark Larson: but please, yeah, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Juliette Alimena: Maybe it's worth it to make it a small sample yourself with even just one process.
Mark Larson: Yeah.
Juliette Alimena: And not apply, you know, harsh cuts on it at all, and see with 4 versus 6 hits, what what is? What are the numbers look like just to get a rough idea like, are, would we be introducing a ton more fakes by by doing this.
Mark Larson: Yeah.
Mark Larson: yeah, I did look into this. I'm wondering, is there a process card available
Mark Larson: that could be used to generate these? Or should I create it myself?
Juliette Alimena: I don't know. Maybe Jeremy Jeremy wanted to comment on this.
Jeremy Andrea: No, I was willing to comment on the fake so maybe I'll let you finish this, and and
Jeremy Andrea: well.
micheleselvaggi: And process. What do you mean? A process card? Sorry.
Mark Larson: At at least for the generation of the signal samples we use this process card.
Mark Larson: that was fed to mad graph
Mark Larson: how to talk.
micheleselvaggi: The proc.
Mark Larson: Brave.
micheleselvaggi: Get off your.
Mark Larson: Yeah, I, yeah, yeah.
micheleselvaggi: I don't even know how you generated these samples at this point, because you generated Madcraft Standalone les.
micheleselvaggi: Yeah, it's the p. 8. And then you
micheleselvaggi: you feed it to the
micheleselvaggi: how is this.
Mark Larson: Yeah. So we, we, we generate these unweighted events, I guess, using mad graph and then simulate the detect response, using the detector card with Delphi.
micheleselvaggi: You generate. Peter has the you generate you use Peter within the CC. Framework, or or within Macgraph.
Mark Larson: I believe, within mad graph, but.
Juliette Alimena: This is the Pythia and Delphi stuff happening in one together. Mark.
micheleselvaggi: That's my question.
Mark Larson: I don't believe so, I believe. Sorry. I believe these are linked together. And then
Mark Larson: the
Mark Larson: Delphin step is is sort of separate.
micheleselvaggi: Appmc files or something.
Mark Larson: Yeah, yeah, I I I can point you to the read me, which
Mark Larson: is has the sort of instructions that I follow here. But yeah.
micheleselvaggi: But because if it's if you do stand alone production, you don't. Then I don't understand the question of the proc card of Madgrav, because mad graph.
micheleselvaggi: the prop card is just the process, the heart scattering process.
micheleselvaggi: So I mean all of these, all all of the generation you did up to heart scattering, or Pta 8
micheleselvaggi: should be completely agnostic, to which detector simulation use.
micheleselvaggi: So you don't have to regenerate events. I mean, you just have to generate the last part, which is a type of simulation.
Mark Larson: Okay.
Juliette Alimena: Okay. Then maybe we go to to Jeremy.
Jeremy Andrea: Yeah, I'm so sorry.
Jeremy Andrea: if we have Mp. Mpc. Which and include the
Jeremy Andrea: Ptr. But not Delphis, of course. Let me check, because we might have some united some samples. I'm not promising anything, but
Jeremy Andrea: may have some files existing already. If you want to make a quick check.
Mark Larson: Okay.
Jeremy Andrea: Then, yeah, about the fakes. Again, it's reflecting my ignorance of the first simulation. But
Jeremy Andrea: if there is no pattern recognition, is there any fakes at all.
Jeremy Andrea: because you might want to interpret. Okay, in any case, Fix
Jeremy Andrea: mainly comes from. Okay.
Jeremy Andrea: depends what we what we call fake. If it's a real track which is fakely displaced in the construction which could be padre construction.
Jeremy Andrea: or, if it's a real fake from a random combination of it. In that second case.
Jeremy Andrea: I would be very careful with for simulation. In any case, if you don't have any pattern recognition that that that contribution to the fake displaced tracks
Jeremy Andrea: probably is missing. If I get it right.
micheleselvaggi: That's correct.
Juliette Alimena: Okay. Yup.
Juliette Alimena: okay. Maybe
Juliette Alimena: if there's any other burning questions on this part of the talk.
Juliette Alimena: otherwise we let let let Mark finish it.
Mark Larson: Okay, this section is shorter. But yeah, I I'll give a quick update on the sort of progress that's been made in incorporating the chronic decays that goes on
Mark Larson: into our signal.
Mark Larson: So I've regenerated the same signal process but using these that goes on now decaying to pair of corks here.
Mark Larson: And then we generated the samples again, using the winter 2023 idea card
Mark Larson: and for the background, the plan is to use the again Www. And Zc, inclusive the case
Mark Larson: and then because the Zh, there aren't inclusive decay samples available.
Mark Larson: We'll plan to use each of the different samples that corresponds to z to q, and then use only for now the h 2 www, and Vp. Samples
Mark Larson: just for sake of simplicity at the moment, says, I believe these have the highest cross sections.
Mark Larson: And so, in terms of the actual analysis, scripts I added, various different jet parameters the jet energy momentum, different coordinates.
Mark Larson: and charge
Mark Larson: as well as a new variable, which was the sum of each of the jet energies
Mark Larson: which is motivated by this fully Andronic ch. Analysis one of the cuts they do is, I believe, on the total jet energy reconstructed.
Mark Larson: So that's something we may possibly use.
Mark Larson: And then, finally, the total number of reconstructive jets which is what I kind of wanted to ask a question about
Mark Larson: the actual values of this parameter seem inconsistent with what we expect.
Mark Larson: and hence the jet energy and other variables seem consistent as well.
Mark Larson: So for the hadronic decay samples, we'd expect 6 jets to from these that goes on decay.
Mark Larson: And then, if the scalar particles are both decaying within detector. And we have, zoom 100% construction efficiency of the jets
Mark Larson: you get 4 from the 2 scaled particles between.
Mark Larson: Whereas for the Leptonic samples we expect, or the leptonic decays, the zip boson samples. We expect only 4, Jack.
Mark Larson: However, this is sort of far from what we're seeing for both the electronic and electronic samples.
Mark Larson: looking at the number of constructed jets or the CPU 3.4 sample.
Mark Larson: So we really expect the 2 scalar particles to decay within the detector for the sample.
Mark Larson: However, for the electronic samples we're seeing primarily 2 and 3 reconstructed jets
Mark Larson: and for the hydronic samples we're also seeing primarily 2 and 3
Mark Larson: with slightly more being
Mark Larson: having 3 reconstructed jets. Late more events having 3 reconstructed jets.
Mark Larson: but nonetheless, this is clearly different than what we would expect to see for these
Mark Larson: 2 signals. So
Mark Larson: basically, I'm a bit confused as to what's going on here.
Mark Larson: and to further illustrate this
Mark Larson: show, the C tabled 34,000 sample in which we
Mark Larson: don't expect to see these scalar particles decaying very often in the detector.
Mark Larson: And here we're seeing primarily 2 reconstructed jets for the majority of events, and then for the Hedronic
Mark Larson: need the case. We're seeing about a thousand events with 3 constructive checks as well.
Mark Larson: And they'll note that looking at the number of reconstructive electrons and muons support stats for the electronic samples. The Z is indeed still became electronically so.
Mark Larson: There's not some mistake with
Mark Larson: signal generation, or which signals are released here.
Mark Larson: so I looked a bit into this
Mark Larson: check algorithm that's used in the detector card
Mark Larson: that we use through Delphis.
Mark Larson: and I am hoping to see how this explains. Why. It seems that the
Mark Larson: electron mu one pairs are each being
Mark Larson: reconstructing out 2 jets each, I guess, and it seems that the 4 bees are being reconstructed
Mark Larson: in total is only one jets
Mark Larson: and so, looking at what the windows 2023 idea card we use see, that uses this so called exclusive Durham Kt algorithm.
Mark Larson: And notably in this end jets equal to mode
Mark Larson: However, I don't think that this quickly explains what I'm seeing here. So
Mark Larson: basically want to ask the question, if anybody has any idea what may be going on here. As one of the cuts that we would hope to do would be on the number of reconstructed jets. And
Mark Larson: of course, in general, if the Electron and muons are being reconstructed to jets.
Mark Larson: so sort of prove problematic for proceeding with
Mark Larson: developing this analysis. So
Mark Larson: and that's now all I have.
Juliette Alimena: Okay, great, thank you.
Juliette Alimena: maybe.
Juliette Alimena: Yeah. I. So my thought on this last part is we should check with Magda what she's seeing, and she's got her hand raised, and my other thought was, Did you look to see what's happening at the Gen. Level? You're you're talking about the reconstructed level. But if things are wrong already at the Gen. Level, then
Juliette Alimena: that that that would explain that that would be the first place to look.
Mark Larson: Indeed I I did double check that at at the Gen level. It is indeed defined that the disease became the 2
Mark Larson: quarks. But
Mark Larson: in terms of I guess the
Mark Larson: yeah, I I I'm not sure how else I would check, I guess, at the gym level.
Mark Larson: Beyond looking at these unwitted events. But yeah.
Juliette Alimena: Okay, let's go to Magda, and then I see Michael is unmuted. So Magda first.
Magdalena Vande Voorde: Yeah, I just so I'm not an jet Albright expert. So I can't talk about this in detail. But from what I know about one you require and just equals 2. It's like an exclusive operator, so it will run until it finds 2 jets, and then that's it. Include any more jets. But what you can do is to rerun the jets. Albert, in the first analysis stage.
Magdalena Vande Voorde: as where would define all of our observables? You can include some code to reland and then define it to be yeah, either n, just equal 4 or look at another algorithm. So on and so forth.
Mark Larson: Okay? Bye.
Juliette Alimena: Okay? And that's what you're doing. Magda.
Magdalena Vande Voorde: I haven't done this officially, I mean, I played around a bit with it, but I was procrastinating my thesis waiting, but I do have links to really read up about this more in general. I'll find it and post it in chat.
Juliette Alimena: Okay. Thanks.
Mark Larson: That'd be helpful. Yeah, thank you.
Juliette Alimena: Mike Kelly.
micheleselvaggi: Yes, what you want to do here is to indeed. As mark that said, you have to first. So you have a at the at the analysis level. You have a list of
micheleselvaggi: of the whole.
micheleselvaggi: the whole list of the particle flow candidates.
micheleselvaggi: So you want to identify the 2 options first.
micheleselvaggi: and then remove them from that list and then run
micheleselvaggi: clustering algorithm.
micheleselvaggi: which in this case would be probably unequal to
micheleselvaggi: anybody for sorry
micheleselvaggi: or an equal 6, depending on whether.
Mark Larson: Yeah.
micheleselvaggi: The electronic Dk, or the
micheleselvaggi: or the or the Lepton qua?
micheleselvaggi: Because right now, so what I'm confused is, though, in Slide 20, you show that you have sometimes 3 jets.
Mark Larson: Moving forward.
micheleselvaggi: Which this is something I don't understand how it can happen. You should have always 2
micheleselvaggi: or less in case you have only one particle or something.
Mark Larson: Yeah in in the my original thought was that it's fighting just up to 2. But then, yeah, I was confused as to why 3 are being constructed for
Mark Larson: a lot of the events as well.
Mark Larson: Yeah, I'm not sure.
micheleselvaggi: Hey? Hi.
micheleselvaggi: pv, 2.
micheleselvaggi: Yeah. So
micheleselvaggi: sweet.
micheleselvaggi: Good. I kind of. I'm letting you to the weather again.
micheleselvaggi: See them.
Juliette Alimena: Okay.
micheleselvaggi: Using that, you have only 8 that you have sometimes more than 2.
micheleselvaggi: Yeah, yeah, it's like, I didn't
micheleselvaggi: in some.
Juliette Alimena: Other comments or questions
Juliette Alimena: also in general.
Juliette Alimena: For for mark.
Juliette Alimena: okay.
Juliette Alimena: great.
Juliette Alimena: Then thanks a lot, mark and thanks everyone for participating. Do we have any other business to discuss.
Juliette Alimena: Okay, potentially. See you in 2 weeks. Thanks. Everyone.
Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez: Thank you. Bye, bye.
Juliette Alimena: Bye.