From zutshi@fnal.gov Fri Jan 31 11:14:06 2003 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 02:21:06 -0600 From: Vishnu ZutshiTo: D0JETMET@listserv.fnal.gov Subject: [D0JETMET] jets and noise Please find the attached and the ensuing text to summarize the discussion I had with Leslie last evening. This is partly my response to Emmanuel's plots and partly an attempt to re-foist my prejudice. fig0 == no. of jets in QCD40 no-noise (no zsup) events fig1 == no. of jets in noise only (neutrino) events (2.0sigma zsup) fig2 == " " " " " " (2.5sigma zsup) fig3 == no. of jets in QCD40 files (2.0sigma zsup) fig4 == " " " " " " (2.5sigma zsup) fig5 == f90(jetpt>10) for QCD40 files (2.5sigma zsup) fig6 == " " " " " (nonoise/nozsup) So how do I interpret this: a)fig 1 and 2 show what gaussian noise does in terms of jet creation. Point to be noted is that 2.5sigma cut neutralizes jet creation due to gaussian noise pretty well (as expected). b)One might then expect that fig3 then should be appox. a sum of fig0 and fig1. That it is. c)Fig4 should can then be expected to be appox. the sum of fig0 and fig2 i.e. you expect fig. 4 to look very much like fig0. They do. d) Given the evidence above my claim is that fig. 4 does not contain any significant amount of pure noise jets. e)However the f90 plot in fig5 does show a double bump with~10% of the entries in the smaller bump as is the case with data processed with 2.5sigma. f)Comparison to fig6 also shows that not only does the second bump increase due to the presence of noise in the sorrunding environment the lower peak also shifts significantly from about 0.35 to 0.5 (if memory serves me the lower peak in data is also around 0.5?). My conclusion is that with 2.5sigma suppression the no. of pure noise jets is minimal (ofcourse the effect of noise on true jets is not) and that the higher bump in f90 are actually true jets for the most part. Now data is ofcourse somewhat more complicated but I believe the qualitative conclusions should still hold. Thanks Vishnu