Rami HH ForUNLHEP 15may2017 v2

Analysis of double
Higgs to bbZZ
Rami Kamalieddin, Ilya Kravchenko (UNL)
Michele de Gruttola (CERN)
Lesya Shchutska (ETH)
Big thanks for random help to

Benjamin Stieger, bb and bbWW teams
UNLHEP meeting, 15 May 2017

2
welcome to HH physics....
Rami Kamalieddin (UNL) HHbbZZ2b2l2 UNLHEP 15 May 2017

3
OUTLINE
HH production and analysis signature
Goal of the analysis
Complicated issue that we face
Possible solutions tried
Future plans

4
HH production,
HH bbZZ 2b 2l 2nu

5
Double Higgs production
Gluon fusion is the leading mechanism

* Pic from the talk by Marco Zaro
6
Higgs decay modes
Higgs BR + Total Uncert
LHC HIGGS XS WG 2013

1 WW
bb
gg ZZ
10-1
cc
10-2
Z
10-3

10-480 100 120 140 160 180 200

MH [GeV]
In our analysis we have HH decay through:

H to bb to give the highest BR
H to ZZ*, with Z to ll to give important handles,
which improve sensitivity
7
2b 2l 2 signature
MET from the off shell Z* boson
H ZZ*
2 leptons (eles, muons) from on shell Z
H bb
2 b-jets from the Higgs bb
* Pic based on the plot from bbWW team

8
Analysis strategy

9
Analysis strategy
Object Build Input to Combine Limits

selection Candidate
Requirements Simple common Simple shape: Final target

on leptons, jets sense cuts: HH trans.mass, is to derive
and met before Nb-jets, mbb, ZH mt2, etc the best
constructing a Nlep, mll, MET limits we
candidate OR can
OR
BDT with the BDT with all the

above variables possible
kinematic and
other variables

10
Analysis strategy
Object Build Input to Combine Limits

selection Candidate
Requirements Simple common Simple shape: Final target

on leptons, jets sense cuts: HH trans.mass, is to derive
and met before Nb-jets, mbb, ZH mt2, etc the best
constructing a Nlep, mll, MET limits we
candidate OR can
OR
BDT with all the
BDT with the
possible
above variables
kinematic and
other variables
Last two time we discussed object selection and building a
candidate, now lets focus on the Input to Combine
11
Goal of the analysis

12
Shape analysis
Our objective is:

Set 95% CL limit on
(pp X hh) BR(hh bbZZ bbllmet ) vs mass of X
The method we will use to achieve it:

Binned shape analysis using Higgs Combination Tool

13
Shape analysis, cont.

Questions that we need to address:
Which distribution to use?

Plenty of options.
Ideally use the one that gives the best limit.
How difficult is to construct this shape?

What could be possible complications at the
pre-approval/approval stage

14
Shape analysis, cont.

Questions that we need to address:
Which distribution to use?

Plenty of options.
Ideally use the one that gives the best limit.
How difficult is to construct this shape?

What could be possible complications at the
pre-approval/approval stage
Keeping in mind the latter,

lets explore in full depth the first question.
Any suggestions are highly appreciated.
15
HH transverse mass shape

16
Simplest shape
Possibilities:
1. HH_mt is the simplest

common sense option:

17
Simplest shape
Possibilities:

+ Easy to construct this variable

18
Simplest shape
Possibilities:

We cut on five different variables before

we build HH_mt. Thus, those five cuts
have to be optimized.


19
Simplest shape
Possibilities:

We cut on five different variables before

we build HH_mt. Thus, those five cuts
have to be optimized.

Run Punzi significance or alike Use MVA methods (LD, BDT, DNN),
on 55 cuts (vary each cut at then simply cut on the response of
least twice down and up) the produced MVA distribution

20
BDT shape

21
BDT shape
Possibilities:
2. BDT response as an input shape

to Higgs Combination Tool

22
BDT shape
Possibilities:
2. BDT response as an input shape

to Higgs Combination Tool
+ Utilize discriminating power of

several promising variables
+ BDT does the work

23
BDT shape
Possibilities:
2. BDT response as an input shape to Higgs Combination Tool
Which variables to use?

We have 58 variables: pt, eta, phi, mt, mt2, dEta, dPhi, dR for b-jets,
leptons, Z, met, Hs and HH.
Discriminating power varies with the mva method.
How to address correlations?

Assume BDT will take care of it
Apply decorrelation
transformation prior to training

24
BDT shape
Possibilities:
2. BDT response as an input shape to Higgs Combination Tool
Which variables to use?

We have 58 variables: pt, eta, phi, mt, mt2, dEta, dPhi, dR for b-jets,
leptons, Z, met, Hs and HH.
Discriminating power varies with the mva method.
How to address correlations?

Assume BDT will take care of it
Apply decorrelation transformation prior to training
What to do with variables used to define control regions (CR):

Use for CRs (invert cut on variable) and exclude from BDT set of variables
Use in BDT and define new CRs

25
The scheme we chose

26
BDT shape for Combine
Optimize BDT with all 58 variables

Use BDT shape for Higgs Combination tool
+ Sounds like the simplest option

27

Type of training?
Binary classification (S vs total BG)
MultiClass classification (S vs TT vs DY)

28

Type of training?
Low statistics for signal

Combine samples into four regions:
low mass (260 and 270 GeV)
at mass (@ the peak of DY and TT,
300-450 GeV)
mid mass (600 and 650 GeV)
high mass (900 and 1000 GeV)

29

Type of training?
Low statistics for signal

Combine samples into four regions:
low mass (260 and 270 GeV)
300-450 GeV)
Check what gives the best ROC integral

30
Binary classification:
S vs total BG

31
Binary classification
Binary classification: S vs total BG (TT+DY) of 58 vars
+ Fast
Information about correlations among BG samples is lost
260+270 GeV
ROC integral for LD = 0.547!

ROC integral for BDT = 0.918!

32
+ Fast
260+270 GeV 300-450 GeV
ROC integral for LD = 0.547! ROC integral for LD =0.787!


33
+ Fast
260+270 GeV 300-450 GeV 600+650 GeV

ROC integral for BDT = 0.92! ROC integral for LD = 0.981!

34
+ Fast
260+270 GeV 300-450 GeV 600+650 GeV 900+1000 GeV

ROC integral for BDT = 0.918! ROC integral for LD = 0.981!
ROC integral for BDT = 0.92! ROC integral for BDT = 0.992! ROC integral for LD = 0.995!

35
+ Fast
260+270 GeV 300-450 GeV 600+650 GeV 900+1000 GeV
Only btag of leading jet is present in all sets

low mass region has fewer variables in common
wrt to other sets
36
MultiClass:
S vs TT vs DY

37
MultiClass
MultiClass: S vs TT vs DY for all 58 vars
+ All the information available in the MC is preserved

+ May give increase in performance when enough statistics is available
Request/produce new big signal samples?

38
MultiClass
+ All the information available in the MC is preserved

+ May give increase in performance when enough statistics is available
Request/produce new big signal samples?
Slow, easily scales from hours to days with more statistics, additional
different types of BG, increased # of BDT trees and # of layers
May be solved running on GPU with tf/theano backend

39
MultiClass
260+270 GeV
BDT ROC integrals for:

TT DY Signal
0.340 0.056 0.997

40
MultiClass
260+270 GeV 300-450 GeV
BDT ROC integrals for: BDT ROC integrals for:

TT DY Signal TT DY Signal
0.340 0.056 0.997 0.172 0.002 0.999

41
MultiClass
260+270 GeV 300-450 GeV 600+650 GeV
BDT ROC integrals for: BDT ROC integrals for: BDT ROC integrals for:
TT DY Signal TT DY Signal TT DY Signal
0.340 0.056 0.997 0.172 0.002 0.999 0.328 0.289 0.999

42
MultiClass
260+270 GeV 300-450 GeV 600+650 GeV 900+1000 GeV
BDT ROC integrals for: BDT ROC integrals for: BDT ROC integrals for: BDT ROC integrals for:
TT DY Signal TT DY Signal TT DY Signal TT DY Signal
0.340 0.056 0.997 0.172 0.002 0.999 0.328 0.289 0.999 0.190 0.783 1.000

43
MultiClass
260+270 GeV 300-450 GeV 600+650 GeV 900+1000 GeV
None! of the variables appear in all sets
high mass region has fewer variables in common

wrt to other sets

44
Conclusions
Analysis strategy is clear binned shape analysis using Higgs Combine
Choose BDT over CnC for performance reasons/practicality
Multiclass seems worth using as it brings extra power

45
Plans
Out of almost fully exhaustive list of available options,
which were presented, make an educated guess and
pick few to get final limits
Optimize the option, which gave the best limit
Proceed with other items on the analysis list
* pic from the talk by Maxime Gouzevitch

46
Double Higgs is not easy,

but it is doable!
If it sounds complicated, you are not the only one
...the screenshot that I

took from the real HH talk!
Even Joe Incandela looks

double confused...

47
BACK UP

48
Material for HH meeting

49
TWO different BDTs

50
TWO different BDTs

Possibilities:
3. Two different (by purpose) BDTs:

One BDT with common sense variables to construct
the best promising variables
Another BDT is to utilize these best promising variables in order to
create the shape for Higgs Combination Tool

51
TWO different BDTs

Possibilities:

+ May be the best option performance-wise

52
TWO different BDTs

Possibilities:

+ May be the best option performance-wise
Difficulty validating them.
Which goes where:

common sense variables vs variables to define CRs.
variables to define CRs vs promising variables variables

53
N-dimensional BDT

54
N-dimensional BDT
Possibilities:
4. N-dimensional BDT shapes mapped into 1D hist for Higgs Combination Tool
+ Similar procedure is used in tHq/ttH (2D into 1D) and other analyses

55
N-dimensional BDT
Possibilities:
+ Similar procedure is used in tHq/ttH (2D into 1D) and other analyses
1D shape has to be optimized too
Complexity of problem how many BDTs we need taking into account:

Two dominant backgrounds (TT and DY)
Signal like BG (SM ZH)
Signal MC samples cover 10 points from 260 to 1000 GeV

56
N-dimensional BDT
+ Similar procedure is used in tHq/ttH (2D into 1D)
1D shape has to be optimized too
Complexity of problem how many BDTs we need?

Two dominant backgrounds (TT and DY)
Signal like BG (SM ZH)
Signal MC samples cover 10 points from 260 to 1000 GeV
Optimize 10 signal Optimize:

mass points low mass (260 and 270 GeV)
300-450 GeV)
Optimize low One parametrized
and high mass learning training
regions 4D BDT shape can be constructed,
(see it as 3D shape wrapped into heat map)
then translated into 1D histogram
57
Physics objects

58
Building HH candidate
At least 2 b-jets
90 GeV < Hbb mass < 150 GeV
Exactly 2 leptons
76 GeV < Dilepton mass < 106 GeV,

to be separated from bbWW
Missing ET > 20 GeV
Transverse mass of HH > 250 GeV

59
b-jets
Jet selection:
PF CHS jets with charged particles
from non-primary vertices (PU)
removed before clustering
Anti-kT jet algorithm to cluster jets
withing the cone of R=0.4
Good jets with pt > 30 GeV, || < 2.4
Loose jet ID and PU-ID are applied
b-jet selection:
CSV algorithm, WP Medium
at least 2 b-jets
Higgs mass (HCSV/Hbb) is built
from the best btag pair

60
Leptons (muons)
Use only events with 2

opposite sign muons of
>20/15 GeV Pt and || < 2.4
Apply for muon WP Loose

and mu_pfRelIso04 < 0.25

61
Missing transverse energy
PF MET type 1 corrected

Cut on MET > 20 GeV mostly
affects only Drell-Yan
62
On shell Z ll
As expected Drell-Yan is the main background

Hard to make judgments about shown Z pT of the
300 GeV signal sample, but higher mass samples
will have evident large boost
63
Higgs bb
Two b-jets with highest CSV score are

used to form H bb
Small statistics of signal MC sample
limits resolution of H bb mass
64
Higgs ZZ*
Z ll plus MET are used to form Higgs ZZ*

Reconstructed mass of Higgs ZZ*
has a clear positive skew and high mass mean
65
HH transverse mass
m T2 = E 2 - p 2z
One of our main handles for the analysis


Rami HH ForUNLHEP 15may2017 v2

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Rami HH ForUNLHEP 15may2017 v2

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Analysis of double

Big thanks for random help to

UNLHEP meeting, 15 May 2017

Rami Kamalieddin (UNL) HHbbZZ2b2l2 UNLHEP 15 May 2017

HH production and analysis signature

Goal of the analysis

Complicated issue that we face

Possible solutions tried

Rami Kamalieddin (UNL) HHbbZZ2b2l2 UNLHEP 15 May 2017

Rami Kamalieddin (UNL) HHbbZZ2b2l2 UNLHEP 15 May 2017

Double Higgs production

Gluon fusion is the leading mechanism

Higgs decay modes

Higgs BR + Total Uncert

LHC HIGGS XS WG 2013

10-480 100 120 140 160 180 200

In our analysis we have HH decay through:

MET from the off shell Z* boson

2 leptons (eles, muons) from on shell Z

* Pic based on the plot from bbWW team

Rami Kamalieddin (UNL) HHbbZZ2b2l2 UNLHEP 15 May 2017

Object Build Input to Combine Limits

Requirements Simple common Simple shape: Final target

BDT with the BDT with all the

Rami Kamalieddin (UNL) HHbbZZ2b2l2 UNLHEP 15 May 2017

Object Build Input to Combine Limits

Requirements Simple common Simple shape: Final target

Goal of the analysis

Rami Kamalieddin (UNL) HHbbZZ2b2l2 UNLHEP 15 May 2017

Our objective is:

The method we will use to achieve it:

Rami Kamalieddin (UNL) HHbbZZ2b2l2 UNLHEP 15 May 2017

Shape analysis, cont.

Which distribution to use?

How difficult is to construct this shape?

Rami Kamalieddin (UNL) HHbbZZ2b2l2 UNLHEP 15 May 2017

Shape analysis, cont.

Which distribution to use?

How difficult is to construct this shape?

Keeping in mind the latter,

HH transverse mass shape

Rami Kamalieddin (UNL) HHbbZZ2b2l2 UNLHEP 15 May 2017

1. HH_mt is the simplest

Rami Kamalieddin (UNL) HHbbZZ2b2l2 UNLHEP 15 May 2017

1. HH_mt is the simplest

+ Easy to construct this variable

Rami Kamalieddin (UNL) HHbbZZ2b2l2 UNLHEP 15 May 2017

1. HH_mt is the simplest

+ Easy to construct this variable

We cut on five different variables before

Rami Kamalieddin (UNL) HHbbZZ2b2l2 UNLHEP 15 May 2017

1. HH_mt is the simplest

+ Easy to construct this variable

We cut on five different variables before

Rami Kamalieddin (UNL) HHbbZZ2b2l2 UNLHEP 15 May 2017

Rami Kamalieddin (UNL) HHbbZZ2b2l2 UNLHEP 15 May 2017

2. BDT response as an input shape

Rami Kamalieddin (UNL) HHbbZZ2b2l2 UNLHEP 15 May 2017

2. BDT response as an input shape

+ Utilize discriminating power of

+ BDT does the work

Rami Kamalieddin (UNL) HHbbZZ2b2l2 UNLHEP 15 May 2017

2. BDT response as an input shape to Higgs Combination Tool

Which variables to use?