1 / 21

Update Kmu3 Branching Ratio measurement

Anne Dabrowski Northwestern University Collaboration Meeting 22 nd February 2005. Update Kmu3 Branching Ratio measurement. A. Dabrowski, February 22 2005. Strategy: Measure Kmu3 Br normalised to pipi0. Test 2 Particle ID muon strategies : Muon Veto as Muon ID

adam-williamson
Download Presentation

Update Kmu3 Branching Ratio measurement

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. Anne Dabrowski Northwestern University Collaboration Meeting 22nd February 2005 Update Kmu3 Branching Ratio measurement A. Dabrowski, February 22 2005

  2. Strategy: Measure Kmu3 Br normalised to pipi0 • Test 2 Particle ID muon strategies: • Muon Veto as Muon ID • Check muon veto status 1 or 2 • Timing association of 2ns for track between muon veto and hodoscope time • LKR and HAC as Muon ID • Use the mip signal in calorimeters: • LKR < 1.5 GeV and HAC < 5 GeV for the cluster associated to the tracks.. • Requirement for signal and normalisation: • 1 track and 1 pi0 • Kinematic cuts using LKR and DCH A. Dabrowski, February 22 2005

  3. Data Sample • Compact 7.2 & Database pass 5 Min bias 2003 (15745,15746 and 15747) • Alignment • E-baseline correction • Bad burst • Alphas and betas • Projectivity and Blue Field • MC Sample: • Ginsberg correction • DCH resolution correction to MC • Energy scale correction to MC (not in presented Dec 2004 numbers) A. Dabrowski, February 22 2005

  4. Simple selection wanted....Common for Kmu3 and pipi0 • Track Section (no extra tracks allowed): • 1 track after excluding Ghost-tracks • Hodoscope time window (-17. 20. ns) • Track quality > 0.8 CDA < 2.5 , Beta, alpha corrections from database • x,y vertex (-1.8,1.8) cm , z vertex (-500,8000)cm • Blue Field correction applied • Pi0 Selection (extra gammas allowed for both) • Energy of gamma (3, 65) GeV • Separation between gammas > 10 cm • Time difference between gammas (-5., 5.) ns • Pi0 mass cuts at 3 sigma and depends on pi0 energy • Projectivity correction • Latest Energy scale by Michal A. Dabrowski, February 22 2005

  5. Difference between Kmu3 and Pipi0 selection • Kaon Mass (0.475,0.515) GeV • Mom (10, 50) GeV • PT track < 0.215 • Nu mass (-0.0025, 0.001) GeV2 • Distance between track & gammas > 35 cm • PT pi0 < 0.220 • E/P < 0.95 • Use muon rejection only when the muon veto in used in the Kmu3 analysis. • Kaon Mass (assuming pi) <0.475 or >0.515 GeV • Mom (10, 40) GeV • PT track (0.0, 0.2) GeV • Nu mass (-0.01, 0.01) GeV2 • Dist between track & gammas > 10 cm • Energy pi0 < 40 GeV • COM pi0 < 0.24 GeV • COM Track < 0.23 GeV • Mass of mu pi0 < 0.445 GeV • Particle ID for muons (2 methods used) A. Dabrowski, February 22 2005

  6. Pion ID efficiency E/P < 0.95 (common to both analysis methods) • Pion ID efficiency calculated using pipi0 sample from min bias run. • Kinematic cuts (as in my selection) • Muon veto requirement to reject muons • But have a tighter Kaon mass cut for this sample (0.485, 0.505 GeV). • Event Timing and Fiducial cuts as in Kmu3 Br analysis A. Dabrowski, February 22 2005

  7. Method 1: Muon ID using the Muon Veto • Muon ID efficiency calculated using Kμ2 sample from min bias run; • check status 1 or 2 and 2 ns between hod time and muon veto time • Kinematic cuts Momentum (10,40) • Min PT of 0.15 GeV • Banana PT vs P cut (Luca) • Mass ν2 (-0.02;0.01) GeV2 • Event Timing and Fiducial cuts as in Kmu3 Br analysis • Efficiency between 0.997 and 0.998 A. Dabrowski, February 22 2005

  8. Method 1: Correction Factor due to pion not decaying in MC after LKR Probability of a pion NOT decaying between LKr and MUV • IN MC 6.4m decay volume, particle decay not simulated (LKr to MUV) • Apply a correction to MC acceptance of pipi0, momentum dependent • Inefficiency of 0.2% for MUV-ID taken into account The efficiency of pion decay in pipi0 in data and MC (max z is zlkr in MC) A. Dabrowski, February 22 2005

  9. Method 1: Muon Veto IDAcceptance of signal and normalisation Signal Normalization A. Dabrowski, February 22 2005

  10. Method 1: Sources of Background to kmu3+ Ask teresa A. Dabrowski, February 22 2005

  11. Method 1: Sources of Background to pipi0+ A. Dabrowski, February 22 2005

  12. Method 2: Muon ID signals using the LKR and HAC • Cuts chosen • LKR < 1.5 GeV and HAC < 5 GeV • Muon sample using Kμ2 events from min bias run. • Kinematic cuts • Momentum (10,40) • Banana PT vs P cut • Mass ν2 (-0.02;0.01) GeV2 • Muon Veto requested • Event Timing and Fiducial cuts as in Kmu3 Br analysis A. Dabrowski, February 22 2005

  13. Method 2: Muon ID efficiency using the LKR and HAC • Muon ID requirement: • LKR (cluster<1.5 GeV) and HAC (cluster<5.0 GeV) • Muon ID is energy dependent with max ~0.987 • Analysis done bin by bin in momentum Recall Method 1 eff at 0.998 A. Dabrowski, February 22 2005

  14. Method 2: Pion mis-identification as muons using the LKR and HAC • Pions can be to mis-identified as muons • Need a pion mis-identification probability, and background subtraction. • Sample used for calculating the mis-identification probability • Pions from my standard pipi0 selection, with the muon Veto requirement. • Plus a tighter Kaon mass cut for this sample (0.485, 0.505 GeV). • Event Timing and Fiducial cuts as in Kmu3 Br analysis A. Dabrowski, February 22 2005

  15. Method 2: Probability of pion NOT decaying between the LKR and the HAC A. Dabrowski, February 22 2005

  16. Method 2: LKR & HAC muon IDAcceptance of signal and normalisation Signal Normalization A. Dabrowski, February 22 2005

  17. Method 2: Sources of Background to kmu3+

  18. Method 2: Sources of Background to pipi0+ A. Dabrowski, February 22 2005

  19. Comparison in result between 2 methods K+ Muon Veto LKR HAC

  20. Br Result Muon Veto LKR HAC • The error statistical and includes: • Data sample • MC statistics • Errors in particle ID efficiency • No systematic errors have been included • I must still propagate the errors due to the background • And the “not decay after lkr error” A. Dabrowski, February 22 2005

  21. My to do – and questions • My own pi0 mass cut as a function of energy (right now using Michals – possible source for decrease of events in data? Have to check, will check changes in data base / compact why events have decreased since Dec meeting) • The Br as a function of momentum • When kmu3 is a source of background – see the effect of the kmu3 Br from PDG used in the analysis (higher order todo) • Vertex in data/mc problem • The factor to correct for particles not decaying after lkr in MC – need to checked if a small correction should be applied to LKR/HAC case –for the region between lkr and hac … for the pipi0dk and pipi0pi0dk backgrounds. Right now corrected … but must check logic • Check sensitivity to vertex and pt cuts A. Dabrowski, February 22 2005

More Related