1 / 18

Comparison of EM-objects between 1.5 and 2.5 pedestal cut. Emid Meeting

Comparison of EM-objects between 1.5 and 2.5 pedestal cut. Emid Meeting. Jean-Roch Vlimant LPNHE november 7, 2002. Analysis code from Robert & Marumi p10.15 results for Z and W Comparison for run 162594 of Emid objects, Z and W distributions. p10.15 analysis.

treva
Download Presentation

Comparison of EM-objects between 1.5 and 2.5 pedestal cut. Emid Meeting

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. Comparison of EM-objects between 1.5 and 2.5 pedestal cut.Emid Meeting Jean-Roch Vlimant LPNHE november 7, 2002

  2. Analysis code from Robert & Marumi • p10.15 results for Z and W • Comparison for run 162594 of Emid objects, Z and W distributions.

  3. p10.15 analysis • From Robert & Marumi W and Z stream files • Using their analysis framework • Using EMid cutspT>25 GeV EMfrac>0.9 isolation<0.15 Hmatrix<20 W cut ET > 20 Gev

  4. Z peak

  5. W transverse mass

  6. p11 data • Run 162594 taken 1.5 online • p11 reconstruction recoA_reco_all_0000162594_0**.raw_p11.11.00.root • 2.5 (~2.1) offline cut + p11 reconstruction recoA_reco_all_0000162594_0**.raw_s11.11.00-1.5.root • MISSING/ZOMBIE: 02,10,16,20,22,36,38,40,41,48,50,55,73,86,87,90 • Cuts • Candidates : |id|=11,10 • Good candidates : EMfrac>0.9 isolation<0.15 Hmatrix<50 • Electrons : |id|= 11 • Z : pT>25 GeV ntrack=0,1,2 • W : ET>20 GeV

  7. Effect on candidates2.51.5 : loosing 47% of candidates (68407 35877)loosing events with multiple candidates.

  8. Effect on good candidates2.51.5 : loosing 25% (32622468)Hm8<20 22% (19051477)

  9. Effect on electrons2.51.5 : loosing 19% (1010821)same number of events with 2 electronsHm8<20 17% (462387)

  10. Effect on Emfraction1.5 widens the distribution, more evts at EMfrac>1 and below 0.9 CUT

  11. Effect on Emfraction1.5 evens the distribution, gain below 0.9 responsible for loss of good candidates. CUT

  12. Effect on isolationSmeering towards high isolation for 1.5 responsible for loss of candidates

  13. Effect on Hmatrix1.5 increases Hmatrix peaks around 10 and 60 CUT

  14. Effect on pT2.51.5 : Loose small pTs

  15. Effect on pT2.51.5 : Loose small pTs

  16. Effect on the di-em eventsnot enough statistics loss of 5 events from good candaidates

  17. Effect on W transverse massAdd event from good candidates before kinematical edge due to ET increasing ~20

  18. Conclusions from 2.5 to 1.5 • Loose 50% of candidates to EMid - need better understanding of isolation. • Loose 25% of good candidates(10,11) – due to Emfrac and isolation, gain for Hmatrix depends on cut value. • Loose 18% electrons(11)-but better identification rates from candidates. • Loose few di-em ? - not enough stats to state. • Add background to W transverse mass distribution www-d0.fnal.gov/~vlimant/Meeting/CONTRIB/EmidMeeting1.ppt www-d0.fnal.gov/~vlimant/Wps/1.5-2.5sigma-study/nostream/*.ps www-d0.fnal.gov/~vlimant/Wps/1.5-2.5sigma-study/*.ps

More Related