CDF dijet excess in Wjj

Brief review for HCOL meeting in KEK

Disclaimer: Everything presented here I have read some time/somewhere. All coincidences are not accidental it is copypasted various original studies/discussions.

History and references (arXiv only)

0911.4449: CDF original analysis of mjj in WV production (3.9 fb-1). Small bump 0907.4398: D search based on 1.1 fb-1 no excess in this mass range 1104.0699 (2 May): CDF new analysis with hard cuts. The bump confirmed at 3.2. April-May: huge bunch of NSM explanations (>50) and two similar SM ones: observed in the region 150-180 GeV.

T. Plehn and M.Takeuchi (1104.4087, 20 Apr) Z.Sullivan and A.Menon (1104.3790, 1 May)

Giovanni Punzi, 23th Rencontres de Blois, May 30. CDF new analysis based on 7.3 fb-1

luminosity. After including all systematic uncertainties 4.1 difference with SM probably the most significant for SM ever

CDF online note (A. Annovi, P. Catastini, V. Cavaliere, L. Ristori). CDF replies doubts and ATLAS note based on 33 pb-1 (no excess but luminosity is too small) 1106.1921 (9 Jun): new D analysis no bump

gives more details about excess.

Review of CDF analysis: 1104.0699

Signature: high pT isolated lepton + exactly two jets + missing energy * pT,l>20GeV * ET,j>30GeV * PT,jj>40GeV * ET>25GeV / * j<2.4 * jj<2.5 * MT,W>30GeV * ET,j1<0.4 /
Additional dilepton veto:

* to remove contamination from Z

no additional (looser criteria) lepton with 76<mll<106

The resulting sample is dominated by W+jets (no structure in mjj) Minor contribution from WV (single peaks in in mjj) tt, single top (twin peaks in in mjj) Z+jets, QCD jets (with a jet misidentified as lepton) Examples:
q W

* no additional lepton with pT above

10 GeV threshold to suppress other sources of real dileptons such as in tt and dibosons with jets
l

leptonic decays of both final state W's

>

>

>

>

>

q
q

>

- t

> >

>

>

>

b
l

>

Possible NSM processes

Different pole structures: Lepto-phobic Z' (e.g. 1103.6035)

-d/u
u/d u/d

>

Z'

>

>

>

(techno-particles, super-partners, etc)

>

>

New mother resonance

~ ~ t b

> l ~ /~ q t b

>

>

~ W ~ W

>

>

>

>

q
q

>

Possible doubts on the CDF analysis

The analysis requires a perfect control of the all SM contribution, but: even the peak in mjj due to WV seemed to be not very well simulated What would be result of using other MC tools instead of ALPGEN+PYTHIA? Jet energies are corrected for detector effects. The systematic uncertainty due to uncertainties in the jet energy scale (3%) affects all components with the exception of multijet QCD, which is derived from data. The largest systematic uncertainties arise from the modeling of the W+jets and multijet QCD shapes. What if we vary the jet energy scale by a few percent? Does it shift W+jets contribution forward? Additional peak appears exactly on the place of the second peak from top quark production what would result if we change the relative normalization of WV and top production? Does it reproduce the excess?

Possible doubts on the CDF analysis

In order to estimate NLO effects, the original analysis includes the comparison of W+2 partons predictions made by LO ALPGEN+PYTHIA and MCFM. What about top production? Do NLO corrections yield more peaked top contribution? There is Njet=2 requirement. What is theoretical and experimental status of jet survival probability? It is important for estimating top background passing through this jet veto. May be it is just statistical fluctuation?

There is no shift because the increasing of JES leads to additional events passing the analysis cuts. The significance is always above 3.

Review of 1104.4087 (T. Plehn and M.Takeuchi)

>
q

>

boost

<

>
q

>

>

Review of 1104.4087 (T. Plehn and M.Takeuchi)

Review of 1104.4087 (T. Plehn and M.Takeuchi)

Explaining an excess of more than 100 events in the Mjj = 120-170GeV requires a sizable shift in rate of the order of O(10%). the normalization of the top sample, e.g., top>0.43 top and a compensating shift in the WV Of course, this does not mean a 43% shift in the theoretically predicted total cross section for

top production. Almost a third of the the combined top sample is single top production. For reliable theoretical estimate. Thus, we expect a very large error bar on the single top rate after cuts and effciencies.

the jet veto survival probability the CDF analysis includes neither a reliable experimental nor a

CDF objections about top (online note)

b-tagging in the excess region

We perform a comparison between the b-tagging rate in the 120 < MJJ< 160 GeV region and the 100 < MJJ < 120 GeV or 160 < MJJ < 180 GeV "sideband" regions. We determine the ratio NTAG / NUNTAG for several b-tag types where NUNTAG is the number of events without any b-tag information and NTAG can be sub-classed as:

0 T : neither of the two jets has a positive SECVTX Tight tag. 1 T : at least one of the two jets has a positive SECVTX Tight tag. 2 T : both jets have a positive SECVTX Tight tag. 0 L : neither of the two jets has a positive SECVTX Loose tag. 1 L : at least one of the two jets has a positive SECVTX Loose tag. 2 L : both jets have a positive SECVTX Loose tag.

CDF objections about top (online note)

b-tag rate in the muon (left) and electron (right) samples

No significant enhancement of b-tagged events is observed in the "excess" region compared to the sideband regions. This highlights that the excess is not arising solely from b-bbar events least one of the jets should give rise to a b-quark in the "excess" region. and that the excess is not due to an under-estimated t-tbar content since in these events at

CDF objections about top (Giovanni Punzi talk)

To summarize: this cannot possibly be top background

There is no significant tagged component Top-enriched control samples show perfect agreement with simulation

When using actual detector simulation, the top background does not peak at the right place

CDF objections about MC generators (online note)

To model the W+jets shape two different set of programs are used:

ALPGEN (v2.1) interfaced to PYTHIA (v6.326) with the MLM matching scheme SHERPA (v1.2.2) with a Q cut of 15 GeV (to match ALPGEN) using CKKW

matching. The (statistical-only) significance of the excess when the W+jets shape is modeled by SHERPA is 3.8 standard deviations compared to 4.8 with ALPGEN. Detailed comparisons of kinematics distributions between the two generators can be found here http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/ewk/2011/wjj/sherpa_alpgen_comparison.html

CDF objections about MC generators (online note)

MJJ compared to the data with the W+jets shape modeled by SHERPA. Background subtracted MJJ fit with the W+jets shape modeled by SHERPA MJJ compared to the data with the W+jets shape modeled by ALPGEN A comparison (normalized to unit area) of the SHERPA and distribution. ALPGEN W+jets MJJ

CDF objections about jet veto (online note)

The analysis requires Njet=2. The requirement is relax to Njet2 which is expected to be essentially unchanged at 4.8

modeled better. The significance of the excess considering only statistical uncertainties remains

Kinematic Distributions (online note)

Mass of JJ + l system. Is it mother resonance?

Does the excess contain a real W? Look at Wl transverse mass.

Concluding remarks about LHC

After making new D analysis public the score in Fermilab is 2:2. What about LHC? See ATLAS note (ATLAS-CONF-2011-069)

Nothing, however if there is a 300 GeV mother resonance in gg channel then the LHC should be able to see it already with 200 pb-1 luminosity. See LHC progress here (1fb-1 already!).