20170224 16:01 
დეტალური ჩანაწერი  მსგავსი ჩანაწერები

20170224 09:46 
დეტალური ჩანაწერი  მსგავსი ჩანაწერები

20170223 10:55 
დეტალური ჩანაწერი  მსგავსი ჩანაწერები

20170223 07:06 

Multiple D3instantons and mock modular forms II
/ Alexandrov, Sergei (U. Montpellier, L2C ; CERN) ; Banerjee, Sibasish (IPhT, Saclay) ; Manschot, Jan (Trinity Coll., Dublin ; Hamilton Math. Inst., Dublin) ; Pioline, Boris (CERN ; Paris, LPTHE ; UPMC, Paris (main))
We analyze the modular properties of D3brane instanton corrections to the hypermultiplet moduli space in type IIB string theory compactified on a CalabiYau threefold. [...]
arXiv:1702.05497 ; L2C:17011 ; CERNTH2017040 ; IPHTT17020.

2017.  48 p.
Full text

დეტალური ჩანაწერი  მსგავსი ჩანაწერები

20170223 07:06 

Measurement of antiproton annihilation on Cu, Ag and Au with emulsion films
/ Aghion, S (Milan Polytechnic ; INFN Milano) ; Amsler, C (Bern U., LHEP ; Stefan Meyer Inst. Subatomare Phys.) ; Ariga, A (Bern U., LHEP) ; Ariga, T (Bern U., LHEP) ; Bonomi, G (INFM, Brescia ; INFN, Pavia) ; Bräunig, P (Kirchhoff Inst. Phys.) ; Brusa, R S (INFN, Padua ; Trento U. ; INFN, Trento) ; Cabaret, L (Orsay) ; Caccia, M (INFN, Milan ; Insubria U., Como) ; Caravita, R (Genoa U. ; INFN, Genoa) et al.
The characteristics of the process of low energy antiproton annihilation on nuclei (e.g. [...]
arXiv:1701.06306.

2017.  12 p.
00003 Profile of detected tracks (XY positions of tracks at the emulsion layer) in one of the setups. The top right part was not included in our study.  00012 Particle multiplicity from antiproton annihilations as a function of atomic number for MIPs (top) and HIPs (bottom).  00013 Particle multiplicity from antiproton annihilations as a function of atomic number for MIPs (top) and HIPs (bottom).  00004 Surface topography for copper, silver and gold targets obtained from the reconstructed vertices. The vertical scale refers to the distance from the emulsion film. The precision of target foil position is approximately 14 $\mu$m in the vertical direction.  00007 Left: Background contributions to the total multiplicities for the different targets. Right: Multiplicity distributions after subtraction of the background. The histograms show the Monte Carlo predictions.  00002 Left and middle: Target arrangement in the two setups, fixed to the emulsion films. Targets other than Cu, Ag and Au were not included in our study. Right: Antiproton annihilations on the bare emulsion surface.  00006 Left: Background contributions to the total multiplicities for the different targets. Right: Multiplicity distributions after subtraction of the background. The histograms show the Monte Carlo predictions.  00010 Reconstructed multiplicity distributions for annihilations in the copper, silver and gold foils for MIPs (left) and HIPs (right). The histograms show the Monte Carlo predictions by CHIPS, FTFP and FLUKA. The error bars on the histograms account for uncertainties in the dE/dx classification.  00011 Reconstructed multiplicity distributions for annihilations in the copper, silver and gold foils for MIPs (left) and HIPs (right). The histograms show the Monte Carlo predictions by CHIPS, FTFP and FLUKA. The error bars on the histograms account for uncertainties in the dE/dx classification.  00005 Left: Background contributions to the total multiplicities for the different targets. Right: Multiplicity distributions after subtraction of the background. The histograms show the Monte Carlo predictions.  00009 Reconstructed multiplicity distributions for annihilations in the copper, silver and gold foils for MIPs (left) and HIPs (right). The histograms show the Monte Carlo predictions by CHIPS, FTFP and FLUKA. The error bars on the histograms account for uncertainties in the dE/dx classification.  00000 Schematic setup of the experiment. An enlarged view of the target region is shown on the right side.  00008 Signal density (S.D.) distribution vs track angle with respect to the beam direction. Tracks below the black line are defined as being minimally ionizing.  00001 Left and middle: Target arrangement in the two setups, fixed to the emulsion films. Targets other than Cu, Ag and Au were not included in our study. Right: Antiproton annihilations on the bare emulsion surface.  Full text

დეტალური ჩანაწერი  მსგავსი ჩანაწერები

20170222 08:09 
დეტალური ჩანაწერი  მსგავსი ჩანაწერები

20170222 06:42 

Dichroic subjettiness ratios to distinguish colour flows in boosted boson tagging
/ Salam, Gavin P (CERN) ; Schunk, Lais (IPhT, Saclay) ; Soyez, Gregory (IPhT, Saclay)
$N$subjettiness ratios are in wide use for tagging heavy boosted objects, in particular the ratio of 2subjettiness to 1subjettiness for tagging boosted electroweak bosons. [...]
arXiv:1612.03917.

2016.  42 p.
00022 Same as figure as \ref{fig:distribsmass} and \ref{fig:distribstau21} now obtained from our analytic calculation instead of MonteCarlo simulations. In the righthand plot, for clarity, the $\delta$function that appears at $\tauDG=1$ (dijets) has been represented with finite width and scaled down by a factor of $5$.  00023 Same as figure as \ref{fig:distribsmass} and \ref{fig:distribstau21} now obtained from our analytic calculation instead of MonteCarlo simulations. In the righthand plot, for clarity, the $\delta$function that appears at $\tauDG=1$ (dijets) has been represented with finite width and scaled down by a factor of $5$.  00016 Signal significance plotted versus the nonperturbative effects for the QCD background (defined as the ratio between the background ``fake'' tagging rate at hadron and parton level). Different curves correspond to different combinations indicated in the legend. For the solid curves, a SoftDrop ($\beta=2$ and $\zetacut=0.05$) grooming is applied, while no grooming is applied for the dashed curves. In the lefthand plot, we impose a 2~TeV $p_t$ cut on the initial jet. The symbols on each curve then correspond to a signal efficiency (computed at hadron level) ranging from 0.05 upwards in steps of 0.05, with the large symbol on each line corresponding to $\varepsilon_S=0.5$ and the efficiency at the righthand extremity explicitly labelled. In the righthand plot, the signal efficiency (computed at hadron level) is fixed to be 0.5 and the $p_t$ cut on the jet is varied between 500~GeV and 3~TeV (in steps of 500~GeV, labelled explicitly for the groomed dichroic ratio), with the large symbol on each line corresponding to a 3~TeV cut.  00018 Signal significance and nonperturbative effects for background, for jet $p_t$ cuts ranging from $500\GeV$ to $3\TeV$ in steps of $500\GeV$, as in Fig.~\ref{fig:npeffects}(right). The $3\TeV$ point is always labelled with a larger symbol. The plots compare $\tauDG$ ($\beta_\tau=2$) with a range of other tools, including Y$_\text{m}$splitter (left) and $\beta_\tau=1$ dichroic subjettiness ratios (right). Where the $\beta_\tau$ value is not explicitly labelled, it is equal to $2$. Note that the default signalefficiency working point for the dichroic subjettiness ratios is $0.4$ here rather than the $0.5$ chosen in Fig.~\ref{fig:npeffects}. The signal efficiencies for other cases are given in Table~\ref{tab:efficiencies}.  00025 ROC curves providing a comparison between different $N$subjettiness ratios for $\beta_\tau=1$ (dashed lines) and $\beta_\tau=2$ (solid lines). The same 4 variants as in Figs.~\ref{fig:rocparton} and~\ref{fig:rocfull} are included. The left (right) column corresponds to \fulljet (SDgroomed) jets. The top (bottom) row corresponds to partonlevel (hadronlevel) events.  00012 $\tau_{21}$ distributions for jets in dijet (solid lines) and $WW$ (dashed lines) events again imposing $p_t>2$~TeV and including SoftDrop grooming. Different colours correspond to different combinations of jets used for the computation of the jet mass, $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ as indicated in the legend, our new dichroic combination being plotted in black. We have selected jets with a mass is between 60 and 100~GeV. The crosssection used for normalisation, $\sigma$, is defined after the jet $p_t$ and mass cut, so that all curves integrate to one.  00017 Signal efficiency plotted as a function of the cut $\taucut$ on $\tau_{21}$ for all the combinations considered in Figs.~\ref{fig:rocparton} and \ref{fig:rocfull}. Solid curves correspond to hadronlevel results while dashed curves are obtained at parton level. The left plot is obtained starting from the \fulljet jet, while for the right plot, a SoftDrop grooming has been applied.  00015 Signal significance plotted versus the nonperturbative effects for the QCD background (defined as the ratio between the background ``fake'' tagging rate at hadron and parton level). Different curves correspond to different combinations indicated in the legend. For the solid curves, a SoftDrop ($\beta=2$ and $\zetacut=0.05$) grooming is applied, while no grooming is applied for the dashed curves. In the lefthand plot, we impose a 2~TeV $p_t$ cut on the initial jet. The symbols on each curve then correspond to a signal efficiency (computed at hadron level) ranging from 0.05 upwards in steps of 0.05, with the large symbol on each line corresponding to $\varepsilon_S=0.5$ and the efficiency at the righthand extremity explicitly labelled. In the righthand plot, the signal efficiency (computed at hadron level) is fixed to be 0.5 and the $p_t$ cut on the jet is varied between 500~GeV and 3~TeV (in steps of 500~GeV, labelled explicitly for the groomed dichroic ratio), with the large symbol on each line corresponding to a 3~TeV cut.  00001 Lund diagram representation for the phasespace regions relevant to the \fulljet jet mass (left) and the mMDT mass (right). The solid black point corresponds to the emission dominating the jet mass and can be anywhere along the solid red line. It gives the prefactor in the jet mass distribution. The shaded red area corresponds to the vetoed region yielding the Sudakov exponent.  00019 Lund diagrams associated with various analytic calculations. Left: the basic building block $T_\alpha$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:basicanalyticblock}), used to write all Sudakov exponents. Centre: representation of the \fulljet jet Sudakov $R_{\text{\fulljet}}(\rho,\taucut,z)$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:finalRplain}), including secondary emissions. Right: representation of the \fulljet jet Sudakov $R_{\text{SD}}(\rho,\taucut,z)$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:finalRsd}), including secondary emissions. For both the centre and right plots, the dot indicated by $z$ corresponds to the emission dominating the jet mass and we will integrate over allowed values of its momentum fraction $z$.  00002 Lund diagram representation for the phasespace regions relevant to the \fulljet jet mass (left) and the mMDT mass (right). The solid black point corresponds to the emission dominating the jet mass and can be anywhere along the solid red line. It gives the prefactor in the jet mass distribution. The shaded red area corresponds to the vetoed region yielding the Sudakov exponent.  00008  00010 Caption not extracted  00011 Phasespace constraints on QCD jets obtained from our new combination including grooming: we first groom the jet, \eg with SoftDrop (SD). We then compute both the jet mass and $\tau_1$ on the tagged jet (here using the mMDT), yielding the solid red line prefactor and the shaded red region (A) for the Sudakov exponent. We then impose a cut on the $\tau_{21}$ ratio with $\tau_2$ computed on the SD jet, leading to the extra shaded blue and green regions (B and C) for the Sudakov exponent.  00007 Schematic representation of three possible kinematic configurations for the combination of $\tau_{21}$ with mMDT/SD (shown specifically for mMDT or SD with $\beta=0$). In each Lund diagram, emission ``a'' corresponds to the emission that dominates the mMDT/SD jet mass. This defines three regions: region A (red) is vetoed by mMDT, region B (blue) contains the constituents of the mMDT/SD jet and region C (blue) is the difference between the mMDT/SD jet and the \fulljet jet. Emissions ``b'' and ``c'' are respectively in regions B and C, and the three plots correspond to three different orderings of $z_c\theta_c^2$ compared to $z_a\theta_a^2$ and $z_b\theta_b^2$. The table below the plots shows the corresponding value of $\tau_{21}$ for both the QCD background (where all three regions have to be included) and the signal (where only regions A and B are present). For simplicity, ``b/a'' stands for $(z_b\theta_b^2)/(z_a\theta_a^2)$, and so forth.  00005 Schematic representation of three possible kinematic configurations for the combination of $\tau_{21}$ with mMDT/SD (shown specifically for mMDT or SD with $\beta=0$). In each Lund diagram, emission ``a'' corresponds to the emission that dominates the mMDT/SD jet mass. This defines three regions: region A (red) is vetoed by mMDT, region B (blue) contains the constituents of the mMDT/SD jet and region C (blue) is the difference between the mMDT/SD jet and the \fulljet jet. Emissions ``b'' and ``c'' are respectively in regions B and C, and the three plots correspond to three different orderings of $z_c\theta_c^2$ compared to $z_a\theta_a^2$ and $z_b\theta_b^2$. The table below the plots shows the corresponding value of $\tau_{21}$ for both the QCD background (where all three regions have to be included) and the signal (where only regions A and B are present). For simplicity, ``b/a'' stands for $(z_b\theta_b^2)/(z_a\theta_a^2)$, and so forth.  00006 Schematic representation of three possible kinematic configurations for the combination of $\tau_{21}$ with mMDT/SD (shown specifically for mMDT or SD with $\beta=0$). In each Lund diagram, emission ``a'' corresponds to the emission that dominates the mMDT/SD jet mass. This defines three regions: region A (red) is vetoed by mMDT, region B (blue) contains the constituents of the mMDT/SD jet and region C (blue) is the difference between the mMDT/SD jet and the \fulljet jet. Emissions ``b'' and ``c'' are respectively in regions B and C, and the three plots correspond to three different orderings of $z_c\theta_c^2$ compared to $z_a\theta_a^2$ and $z_b\theta_b^2$. The table below the plots shows the corresponding value of $\tau_{21}$ for both the QCD background (where all three regions have to be included) and the signal (where only regions A and B are present). For simplicity, ``b/a'' stands for $(z_b\theta_b^2)/(z_a\theta_a^2)$, and so forth.  00009 Regions where real emissions are vetoed when combining a mMDT/SD tagger with a cut on $\tau_{21}$. See text for details.  00020 Lund diagrams associated with various analytic calculations. Left: the basic building block $T_\alpha$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:basicanalyticblock}), used to write all Sudakov exponents. Centre: representation of the \fulljet jet Sudakov $R_{\text{\fulljet}}(\rho,\taucut,z)$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:finalRplain}), including secondary emissions. Right: representation of the \fulljet jet Sudakov $R_{\text{SD}}(\rho,\taucut,z)$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:finalRsd}), including secondary emissions. For both the centre and right plots, the dot indicated by $z$ corresponds to the emission dominating the jet mass and we will integrate over allowed values of its momentum fraction $z$.  00000 Lund diagram representing the phasespace available for an emission from the jet initial parton at an angle $\theta$ and carrying a momentum fraction $z$. The diagram shows a given emission (the solid dot) as well as lines with the same momentum fraction, $k_t$ and mass scales.  00003 Lund diagram for QCD background jets (left) and signal jets (right) corresponding to the requirement of a given \fulljet jet mass with a cut on the $N$subjettiness ratio $\tau_{21}$. The red shaded region (present only in the background case) corresponds to the Sudakov vetoed region for the mass, as in Fig.~\ref{fig:lundmasses}, together with the prefactor for having an emission on the solid red line. The blue shaded region corresponds to the additional veto coming from the cut on $N$subjettiness. The dashed/dotted red line for the signal case represents the fact that, for signal jets, small$z$ configurations are exponentially suppressed. The region that emerges from the plane is referred to as a ``leaf'' and in the lefthand diagram represents secondary emissions from emission $1$, while in the righthand diagram it represents emissions from the softer of the two prongs of the decay.  00021 Lund diagrams associated with various analytic calculations. Left: the basic building block $T_\alpha$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:basicanalyticblock}), used to write all Sudakov exponents. Centre: representation of the \fulljet jet Sudakov $R_{\text{\fulljet}}(\rho,\taucut,z)$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:finalRplain}), including secondary emissions. Right: representation of the \fulljet jet Sudakov $R_{\text{SD}}(\rho,\taucut,z)$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:finalRsd}), including secondary emissions. For both the centre and right plots, the dot indicated by $z$ corresponds to the emission dominating the jet mass and we will integrate over allowed values of its momentum fraction $z$.  00004 Lund diagram for QCD background jets (left) and signal jets (right) corresponding to the requirement of a given \fulljet jet mass with a cut on the $N$subjettiness ratio $\tau_{21}$. The red shaded region (present only in the background case) corresponds to the Sudakov vetoed region for the mass, as in Fig.~\ref{fig:lundmasses}, together with the prefactor for having an emission on the solid red line. The blue shaded region corresponds to the additional veto coming from the cut on $N$subjettiness. The dashed/dotted red line for the signal case represents the fact that, for signal jets, small$z$ configurations are exponentially suppressed. The region that emerges from the plane is referred to as a ``leaf'' and in the lefthand diagram represents secondary emissions from emission $1$, while in the righthand diagram it represents emissions from the softer of the two prongs of the decay.  00014 ROC curves for various $\tau_{21}$ combinations, \ie background versus signal efficiency, at parton level. The left plot is obtained starting from the \fulljet jet, while for the right plot, a SoftDrop grooming step has been applied. The ROC curves are obtained by varying the cut on the $\tau_{21}$ ratio. In all cases, we considered anti$k_t$($R=1$) jets with $p_t>2$~TeV.Same as figure as \ref{fig:rocparton}, now for hadron level (including the Underlying Event).  00024 Same as figure as \ref{fig:rocparton} now obtained from our analytic calculation instead of MonteCarlo simulations.  00013 Mass distribution for QCD jets with $p_t>2$~TeV (anti$k_t$, $R=1$) at parton level, including SoftDrop grooming. The dashed lines, in red for the SDgroomed jet and in blue for the mMDTtagged jet, are the mass distributions with no constraint on $N$subjettiness. The solid lines have an additional cut $\tau_{21}<0.3$ with different combinations of jets used for the computation of the jet mass, $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ as indicated in the legend, our dichroic combination being plotted using a solid black line. The cross section used for normalisation, $\sigma$ is that for jets above the $p_t$ cut.  Full text

დეტალური ჩანაწერი  მსგავსი ჩანაწერები

20170221 16:11 
დეტალური ჩანაწერი  მსგავსი ჩანაწერები

20170221 14:13 
დეტალური ჩანაწერი  მსგავსი ჩანაწერები

20170221 13:05 
დეტალური ჩანაწერი  მსგავსი ჩანაწერები



