Also use VBF jets to compute the PU jet ID sF about hh-bbww HOT 6 CLOSED

Regarding VBF jets, I think there's a bug in SL channel. Here the VBF jets are cleaned wrt the W->jj jets as identified by the JPA:

• after the selection;
• after the selection and cleaning wrt the fakeable leptons,
• after the selection, cleaning wrt the fakeable leptons, and wrt other jets.

from hh-bbww.

Hi Karl,

sorry, I don't understand where you see a problem. The AK4 jets that are selected by the JPA are central AK4 jets (|eta| < 2.4). The VBF jets are cleaned wrt the AK4 jets selected by the JPA in these lines:

from hh-bbww.

This part is ok, the problem I think is that cleanedJetsAK4_wrtHbb originates from

from hh-bbww.

The pT cut on VBF jets was set to 30 GeV in commit 8d614f1 but there is no explanation why the pT cut was raised:

In any case, the pT cut in our gitlab is still at 25 GeV, so I'll change it back to 25 in my PR, too. Other groups have already synchronized in the VBF jet variables, but we're not.

edit: indeed, the pT > 30 GeV cut was mentioned in bbtautau AN (AN2018/121v4, L291)

from hh-bbww.

Hi Karl,

the VBF jet pT > 30 GeV cut was indeed taken from the HH->bbtautau analysis (cf. slide 5 of https://indico.cern.ch/event/963619/contributions/4118889/attachments/2149275/3623492/statusReport_24_11_2020.pdf ). I would prefer if we keep using the 30 GeV cut for VBF jets, if we can convince the Aachen and Louvain groups to switch to 30 GeV, for two reasons:

1. It will make the documentation and combination of datacards easier if we use the same VBF jet cuts as the HH->bbtautau analysis
2. The VBF jets are reconstructed outside of the tracking acceptance, so are more affected by pileup and potential miscalibration and/or noise of the calorimeters. My understanding is that the official JetMET recommendation is to use jets of pT > 30 GeV (for b-jets/jets within the tracking acceptance, we get permission to reduce the pT threshold to 25 GeV, because central jets depend more on the track reconstruction and are less affected by pileup and potential miscalibration and/or noise of the calorimeters)

from hh-bbww.

Thank you, Christian. I had no strong preference before because we already apply PU jet ID cut also on the VBF jets, so reducing the pT cut by 5 GeV shouldn't make much difference. But I take your point that it's best to keep the common definitions across different HH analyses as similar as possible. I'll let the other groups know that we should use pT > 30 GeV cut for the VBF jets.

from hh-bbww.