1e6 events (211pb): 745 had M(l+l-) > 110 –> 157 fb 194 had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 33 –> 41 fb 169 had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 38 –> 36 fb 125 had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 50 –> 26 fb
13 had M(l+l-) > 400 –> 3 fb 2 had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 33 –> 0.4 fb 2 had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 38 –> 0.4 fb 1 had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 50 –> 0.2 fb
5e5 events with E>20 Pt>10 for both(1.27pb): had M(l+l-) > 110 –> 74 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 33 –> 38 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 38 –> 33 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 50 –> 22 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + eta < 2.4 –> 16 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.009 –> 22 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.009 + eta < 2.4 –> 16 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.006 –> 22 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.006 + eta < 2.4 –> 16 fb
had M(l+l-) > 400 –> 2.3 fb had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 33 –> 1.5 fb had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 38 –> 1.4 fb had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 50 –> 1.2 fb
3.5e5 events (132pb): 596 had M(l+l-) > 110 –> 225 fb 154 had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 33 –> 58 fb 135 had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 38 –> 51 fb 79 had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 50 –> 30 fb
13 had M(l+l-) > 400 –> 5 fb 6 had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 33 –> 2 fb 6 had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 38 –> 2 fb 6 had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 50 –> 2 fb
5e5 events with E>20 Pt>10 for both(1.36pb): had M(l+l-) > 110 –> 113 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 33 –> 57 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 38 –> 49 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 50 –> 33 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + eta < 2.4 –> 24 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.009 –> 17 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.009 + eta < 2.4 –> 12 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.006 –> 15 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.006 + eta < 2.4 –> 10 fb
had M(l+l-) > 400 –> 4.0 fb had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 33 –> 2.8 fb had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 38 –> 2.6 fb had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 50 –> 2.4 fb
1e6 events with E>3 Pt>1 for both (399pb): 452 had M(l+l-) > 110 –> 180 fb 111 had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 33 –> 44 fb 97 had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 38 –> 39 fb 77 had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 50 –> 31 fb
6 had M(l+l-) > 400 3 had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 33 3 had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 38 3 had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 50
5e5 events with E>20 Pt>10 for both(1.28pb): had M(l+l-) > 110 –> 69 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 33 –> 36 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 38 –> 31 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 50 –> 21 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + eta < 2.4 –> 15 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.009 –> 21 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.009 + eta < 2.4 –> 15 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.006 –> 22 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.006 + eta < 2.4 –> 15 fb
had M(l+l-) > 400 –> 2.3 fb had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 33 –> 1.5 fb had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 38 –> 1.4 fb had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 50 –> 1.2 fb
1e6 events with E>3 Pt>1 for both(182pb): 1467 had M(l+l-) > 110 –> 267 fb 376 had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 33 –> 68 fb 312 had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 38 –> 57 fb 171 had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 50 –> 31 fb
26 had M(l+l-) > 400 –> 5 fb 10 had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 33 –> 2 fb 10 had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 38 –> 2 fb 4 had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 50 –> 1 fb
5e5 events with E>20 Pt>10 for both(1.37pb): had M(l+l-) > 110 –> 108 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 33 –> 56 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 38 –> 48 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 50 –> 32 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + eta < 2.4 –> 23 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.009 –> 18 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.009 + eta < 2.4 –> 12 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.006 –> 15 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.006 + eta < 2.4 –> 10 fb
had M(l+l-) > 400 –> 3.2 fb had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 33 –> 2.3 fb had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 38 –> 2.2 fb had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 50 –> 1.9 fb
1e6 events with E>3 Pt>1 for both (401pb): 318 had M(l+l-) > 110 –> 128 fb 66 had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 33 –> 26 fb 49 had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 38 –> 20 fb 49 had M(l+l-) > 110 && Pt > 50 –> 20 fb
0 had M(l+l-) > 400 0 had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 33 0 had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 38 0 had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 50
5e5 events with E>20 Pt>10 for both (1.28pb): had M(l+l-) > 110 –> 74 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 33 –> 38 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 38 –> 33 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 –> 22 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + eta < 2.4 –> 17 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.009 –> 22 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.009 + eta < 2.4 –> 17 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.006 –> 22 fb had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.006 + eta < 2.4 –> 17 fb
had M(l+l-) > 400 –> 2.4 fb had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 33 –> 1.6 fb had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 38 –> 1.6 fb had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 50 –> 1.2 fb
1e6 events with E>20 Pt>10 for both (1.4pb): 82227 had M(l+l-) > 110 –> 115 fb 40678 had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 33 –> 57 fb 34604 had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 38 –> 48 fb 22282 had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 –> 31 fb 16716 had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + eta < 2.4 –> 23 fb 10915 had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.009 –> 15 fb 8195 had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.009 + eta < 2.4 –> 11 fb 9874 had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.006 –> 14 fb 7367 had M(l+l-) > 110 + Pt > 50 + a < 0.006 + eta < 2.4 –> 10 fb
2429 had M(l+l-) > 400 –> 3.4 fb 1640 had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 33 –> 2.3 fb 1529 had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 38 –> 2.1 fb 1232 had M(l+l-) > 400 && Pt > 50 –> 1.7 fb
No Cuts: 6.82e9 Mode 2: E > 3, Pt > 1: 380 Mode 3: E > 3, Pt > 1: 788
PMod 11: No Cuts: 128266 Mode 2: E > 3, Pt > 1: 170 Mode 3: E > 3, Pt > 1: 1812
No Cuts: 144370 Mode 2: E > 3, Pt > 1: 405 Mode 3: E > 3, Pt > 1: 745
PMod 11: No Cuts: 10336 Mode 2: E > 3, Pt > 1: 173 Mode 3: E > 3, Pt > 1: 1006
Elastic: No Cuts: 213 Mode 2: E > 3, Pt > 1: 125 Mode 3: E > 3, Pt > 1: 154
PMod 11: No Cuts: 133 Mode 2: E > 3, Pt > 1: 80 Mode 3: E > 3, Pt > 1: 116
AXOHS parameters Keyword Default Explanations: IBEG the starting step of the program: times 1: to run a completely new job 2: to use the grid produced by VEGAS from a previous run 3: to use the VEGAS grid and the information about the weights of events produced by SETGEN in a previous run IEND the concluding step of the program: 1: to estimate the cross-section only 2: to save SETGEN information (for further runs) times 3: to produce a complete output event (to be stored) PRVG 1 Print parameter from VEGAS NTRT 1 Strategy parameter NTREAT from VEGAS NCVG 14000 Number of events for VEGAS to perform the integration ITVG 10 Number of iterations for VEGAS NCSG 100 Number of events in each bin (for SETGEN) Beam, particle and interaction parameters INPP 820 first incoming particle momentum in GeV/c PMOD first incoming particle type and kind of interaction: 1: electron (for tests) 2: proton elastic = default 11: proton inelastic with structure functions [5] 12: proton inelastic with structure functions [6] (for Mx < 2 GeV; Q^2 < 5 (GeV) ) 13: 101: proton inelastic in parton model, only valence quarks 102: proton inelastic in parton model, only sea quarks 103: proton inelastic in parton model, valence and sea quarks Cut parameters MCUT 2 0: No cuts at all (for the total cross section) 1: Vermaserens hypothetical detector cuts (see [2]) 2: Cut with the following parameters for both leptons 3: Cut with the following parameters for one lepton only THMX 175.0 max of lepton (in degrees) THMN 5.0 min of lepton (in degrees) ECUT 1.0 minimal energy of lepton (in GeV) PTCT 0.5 minimal transverse momentum of lepton (in GeV) Q2MN 0.0 minimal Q2 at the proton side (in GeV^2) Q2MX 10000. maximal Q2 at the proton side (in GeV^2) for PMOD> 10 only : MXMN 1.070 minimal inv. mass of the hadronic system (in GeV ) MXMX 320.0 maximal inv. mass of the hadronic system (in GeV )
13 TeV Protons, 9.4fb^-1, 12 muons, 8 electrons Online cut for mu(e) pt > 38(33) GeV Offline cut for pt > 50GeV, chi^2 < 10, and standard CMS quality criteria
Require no additional tracks found withing the veto distance around the vertex acoplanarity(a=1-abs(delta phi(l+l-))/Pi) required to be consistent with back to back Cut on these two were chosen to minimize Drell-Yan background –> mu(e) a <0.009 (0.006), d = 0.5mm m(l+l-) > 110 GeV
Gap survival probabilities are 0.89, 0.76, and 0.13, applied to the exclusive, the single dissociative, and the double dissociative processes, respectively. The rapidity gap survival probability quantifies the fraction of events in which no extra soft interactions occur between the colliding protons. These soft interactions produce extra final-state particles, and thereby suppress the visible (semi)exclusive cross section
Events with 1 good proton track in CT-PPS are kept fractional mom. loss is estimated as 1/root(s) *(pt(l+)exp(-+eta(l+))+pt(l-)exp(-+eta(l-))) where eta +- corresponds to proton moving in +-z This is exact for exclusive, and holds for single-dissociation
Require fractional mom loss within CT-PPS coverage: sector 45, RP 210N: frac > 0.033 sector 45, RP 210F: frac > 0.024 sector 56, RP 210N: frac > 0.042 sector 56, RP 210F: frac > 0.032
Finally, require frac of leptons and frac of RP agree within 2 sigma of their combined uncertainty
Added a second mass histogram, with a lower range for low mass regions Added to the hstackMaker.C script so that it creates png files for each of the histograms, with labels and a legend
Added Eta cuts to the myTreeMaker.C and corrected the acoplanarity definition Generating muon sample with E>20 and Pt>10, failed at 8.6e5 events Reran with 5e5 events instead
Running all flavors with E>20 Pt>10, with eta, pt, acoplane, and mass cuts
Muons have a combined cross section of ~27fb –> ~270events in 10fb^-1 Electrons have a combined xsec of ~ 27fb as well –> ~270 events
–> veto distance cut, RP agreement cut, RP acceptance, lepton reconstruction/quality, chi^2 cut seem to cut 95-97% of events
consider veto distance, chi^2, and lepton recon cutting very little, since plot shows veto not cutting much and 50GeV Pt leptons are reconstructed well
This implies RP acceptance and aggreement is ~ 5% efficient
ooking at figure 9 in the CMS-Totem paper, it looks like they see ~260 muon events and ~170 electron events when simulating 15.6 fb^-1, before adding in RP cuts for 15.6fb^-1, I expect ~420 events, and with effective gap survival of ~.83 –> ~350 events
Added a fractional momentum loss cut to myTreeMaker.C, added another factor of 2 –> RP reconstruction and agreement is now looking like ~10% efficient
Generated hstacks with hstackMaker.C, and they look fairly similar to the ones in figure 9 of the paper.
Mayda suggested we’d be looking at the lower invariant mass portion of the spectrum Question would be what does the background look like there, and how well can we measure something there.
Continued generating lepton root files, and looking and cross section after cuts With the Pt and Mass cuts, all leptons had similar cross section left With ~ 60fb for muon/electron, ~ 10 fb^-1, expect 600 of each If acoplane goes the same for elastic and muons, expect ~ 400 events This implies the proton requirements, the mismatch, the veto distance, and reconstruction efficiencies are about a 97% cut?
edited myTreeMaker.C to include less info that can be derived (eta, pt, phi, etc) Added lorentz vectors for proton1/2, gamma1/2, tau1/2, and tau(gamma) system Generated 1e6 tau events (elastic) and W looked similar to starlight
Looked at dissociating protons (just 1) and that cross section
Added here some information about the kinematics of pairs looked at in the muon and electron lepton pairs paper
Added multiple trees to myTreeMaker.C and an include file
Reran the elastic proton case with 1e6 events
Worked on cross section + root tree maker