1 / 30

Mauro-Silvia comparison

Mauro-Silvia comparison. Mauro Raggi 26/04/2006 Analysis meeting. Last meeting results. Recent 2 parameter fit Silvia. Silvia fracDE=1.319 ±0.096. Mauro Phd fracDE=1.32 ±0.076. List of selection cuts. LKr energy > 10 GeV N° tracks = 1. quality>0.7 P p+ > 10 GeV E su P < 0.85

ruby
Download Presentation

Mauro-Silvia comparison

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mauro-Silvia comparison Mauro Raggi26/04/2006Analysis meeting

  2. Last meeting results Mauro Raggi

  3. Recent 2 parameter fit Silvia Silvia fracDE=1.319±0.096 Mauro Phd fracDE=1.32±0.076 Mauro Raggi

  4. List of selection cuts • LKr energy > 10 GeV • N° tracks = 1. quality>0.7 • Pp+ > 10 GeV • E su P < 0.85 • Muon veto hits = 0 • 0 MeV < T*p+ < 80 MeV • Fiducial region’s cut • N clusters > 3 o 4 • Ng =3 (in time clusters >35 cm track) • g minimum energy > 3 GeV • Min ene. radiated g>3 GeV • COG < 2 cm • |ZVNEU-ZVCHA| < 400 cm • Only one |ZVNEU –ZVCHA |< 400 cm • |MK-MKPDG|< 10 MeV • 54 GeV <PKCAL< 66 GeV • -1000 < ZVNEU< 8000 cm • Overlapping gamma cut • Only MB1TR–P events • Cut to improve NT-PK efficiency (max(xdiffmin,ydiffmin) > 10 cm) Mauro Raggi

  5. Reconstruction approach Mauro Silvia • Calculate Mp0 imposing charged vertex Z for each gamma pair • Selects the correct gamma coupling selecting the best p0 mass • Impose Mp0to each gamma pair to get 3 values of the neutral vertex ZV • Calculate the MK for each ZV(i) • Selects the pair with the best Kaon mass Non common cuts • LKr > 9 GeV • Time window for tracks 116-154 ns • Time window for clusters 100-154 ns • More than 1 track (not used for comparison) Mauro Raggi

  6. Corrections Mauro Raggi

  7. Bad bursts and bad NT-PK runs 21K ev Mauro Raggi

  8. Data comparison Mauro Raggi

  9. June 2005 comparison results Mauro Raggi

  10. Mauro Silvia Tot: 2358 Tot: 2467 33715.8% 22810.7% 2130 The comparison has been performed scannig all Mauro good events time stamp and event number looking for correspondent Silvia’s one and viceversa. We can establish if the event has survived Silvia’s selection and if not why it has been killed. Starting point Using a dedicated ppg split produced by Silvia we can now run on all SS123 data in less than 3 hours!! After a brief agreement on the values of some cuts the comparison has been started in the region of 0 < T*p< 80 MeV. On the run 15778 from SS3 we got the following result: Mauro Raggi

  11. Main differences discovered • Different acceptance approach to gammas and tracks clusters • Different kind of correction applied (missing non linearyties in Mauro analysis) • LKr smear ON in Mauro analysis (difference in MC only) • LKr cluster position shifts in Silvia acceptance (removed) • Missing cut on track time in Mauro analysis • Bug on the overlapping gammas cut in Mauro analysis Mauro Raggi

  12. Mauro Silvia Tot: 2160 Tot: 2149 331.56% 442.1% 2116 Final comparison result data 0-80 Residual differences • The main difference is due to edge effects in the T*p cut (10/33 -21/44)- Difference in the T*p resolution to be checked • Difference on the mistagging cut (probably due to difference in ZV_cha res. ) Mauro Raggi

  13. T*p for different events T*p T*p Mauro Raggi

  14. 55<T*p<80 0<T*p<80 Mauro Mauro Silvia Silvia Tot: 2160 Tot: 1636 Tot: 2149 Tot: 1611 382.4% 331.56% 634% 442.1% 1573 2116 Final comparison result data 55-80 25% more events • The increasing difference in the sample 55<T*p<80 is due to edge effects in the T*p- The introduction of the lower cut creates more differences • On the other hand the statistic is reduced the discrepancy due to the T*p is not. Mauro Raggi

  15. MC comparison Mauro Raggi

  16. MC comparison: run 15778 K+ Silvia Mauro Tot: 13632 Tot: 13550 3282.5% 4103.1% 13222 0<T*p<80 No further tuning performed so farDifferences mainly due to T*p cut Mauro Raggi

  17. T*p for different events MC All the discrepancy are near the edge of the T*p cut Mauro Raggi

  18. W for different events MC Mauro Raggi

  19. Mauro – Silvia MC(IB)resolutions comparisons Mauro Raggi

  20. Resolution comparisons T*p The difference in resolution may explain the difference in number of events Mauro Raggi

  21. Resolution comparisons W Mauro Raggi

  22. Resolution comparisons Eg Mauro Raggi

  23. Resolution comparisons PK Mauro Raggi

  24. Resolution comparisons MK Mauro Raggi

  25. MK data resolution Mauro Mauro MK(res)DAT= 2.575 MeV Mauro MK(res)MC = 2.648 MeV Difference(Data-MC) = -0.073Difference(Data-MC)% = 3% IF the same resolution difference is there also in W it may generate a fake positive interference 275KeV shift of the measured MK with respect to PDG Mauro Raggi

  26. Resolution comparisons ZVneu Mauro Raggi

  27. Resolution comparisons ZVcha Mauro Raggi

  28. Conclusion on resolutions Resolution difference in T*p to be understood May be due to the difference in the Lorentz tranformation Try to compare pionmomentum We have also a shift in the reconstructed MK that is not yet understood Mauro Raggi

  29. SS123 data comparison Mauro Silvia Tot: 220034 Tot: 218811 Difference 1223 events0.55% Mauro Raggi

  30. Conclusions • A general good agreement in term of number of events has been reaced both in data and MC in run 15778 • Also in all SS123 the agreement remains very good • Mauro and Silvia MC resolutions are quite similar for most variables (more statistic needed to spot problems at the % level) • A comparison of the MK resolutionin data is mandatory • Detailed study of the T*pdistribution is still needed to understand the reason of the discrepancy induced by this cut • Mauro-Silvia comparison of data distributions has to be performed (may be different due to corrections in data only) • Fit results comparison with the new selection not yet completed Mauro Raggi

More Related