update beam parameters from dimuons n.
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Update: Beam Parameters from Dimuons

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 27

Update: Beam Parameters from Dimuons - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Update: Beam Parameters from Dimuons. 26 July 2004 Josh Thompson Aaron Roodman SLAC. Overview. Quick summary of the initial analysis: goals and technique Details about problems that arose during the initial analysis and studies conducted since then Steps to move forward with the analysis

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Update: Beam Parameters from Dimuons' - hastin

Download Now 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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
update beam parameters from dimuons

Update: Beam Parameters from Dimuons

26 July 2004

Josh Thompson

Aaron Roodman


  • Quick summary of the initial analysis: goals and technique
  • Details about problems that arose during the initial analysis and studies conducted since then
  • Steps to move forward with the analysis
    • What changes are being implemented
    • What will be implemented in the future
beam parameters from dimuons
Beam Parameters from Dimuons
  • Goal: measure beam parameters epsilon_y and beta*_y (at the IP)
  • Due to hourglass effect, sigma_y of the interaction region should have a parabolic shape as a function of z, with a central waist
  • Technique is to fit for sigma_y as a function of z and use this to extract beam parameters
gregory schott method
Gregory Schott method
  • Using whole data sample (selection cuts applied):
    • Fit z0, sigmaz to Gaussian
    • Fix z0, sigmaz; fit x0, sigmax, y0, sigmay, 3 tilts, constant background term with a PDF for the doca distribution
  • In bins of z:
    • Fit y0, sigmay (optionally x0, sigmax) with other params fixed from above fit
    • Correct sigmay for resolution variation with z (use doca error vs z plot; details follow)
  • Tracks in dimuon events are independent (not vertexed)
  • Selection cuts:
    • tan(lambda1) + tan(lambda2) > 0.5 (cut cosmics)
    • |10.58 GeV - m_mm| < 0.3 GeV
    • nDCH >= 20 && nSVT >= 5
    • cos(phi1 – phi2) < -0.99
    • cos(theta) < 0.75
first some review
First some review

Is the error on the track doca (from the covariance matrix of the track fit) reliable?

Yes: The measured miss distance between the docas of the two tracks in an event does correlate nicely to the combined doca errors for tracks 1 and 2

I get the same slope as in GS’s thesis: 1.2 mm/mm

  • So the doca error from the fit is likely a good measure of resolution
  • We will come back to this correlation later

Width of miss distance distribution (cm)

sqrt((doca error 1)^2 + (doca error 2)^2) (cm)

problem 1 error on doca w r t phi

(verticality cut applied)

Error on doca


Problem 1:Error on doca w.r.t. phi
  • Why do we care?
  • We need to understand all aspects of the resolution
  • GS: Integral over a track distribution flat in phi is assumed in the PDF, so cuts must preserve that distributionthis plot means we can’t cut directly on track quality
  • I had 2 issues with this distribution:
  • ‘Good’ regions have ~15-20um resolution while ‘bad’ regions have ~20-25um resolution – regions are almost mutually exclusive in doca error
  • phi distribution of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ regions is unintuitive  Next page
is svt structure the problem
Is SVT structure the problem?
  • Naively: doca resolution dominated by inner SVT layers
  • Best resolution comes when first hit is as close as possible to IP and track is at a right angle to the SVT plane
  • Extra material (eg SVT support ribs) degrades resolution

Dimuon tracks

(same plot as prev. page but showing only events on “SVT” plot at right)

Color code by doca error: >20umred; <20umgreen


svt structure ii
SVT structure (II)

Color code by doca error: >20umred; <20umgreen

  • From this (partial and hand-drawn) picture of the SVT:
  • Each of the 6 modules of the inner SVT layer is split between a green region and red region
  • No obvious reason why there should be a large resolution shift in the middle of each module, or from one module to the next at the same phi
problem 1 solved
Problem 1 solved
  • For the phi side only of Layers 1 and 2 of the SVT:
    • ~Half of each module has every SVT strip connected for readout
    • The rest of each module has every other strip “floating” (ie not read out)
      • known as skip bonding
  • Looking at the info in the SvtHitOnTrk of the Layer 1 phi-side hit:
    • Blue (solid) histo shows phi distrib of events with regular bonding
    • Red (dashed) histo shows phi distrib of events with skip bonding


doca error (backw)

phi (backw)

problem 2 resolution variation with z


Problem 2:Resolution variation with z

doca err

  • As GS observed, the doca error decreases with increasing z (true for miss distance as well)
    • [doca error is a single track quantity, so more convenient for detector studies]
  • GS thesis: slope = -0.385 mm/cm
  • Here: slope (forw) = -0.42 mm/cm
  • slope (backw) = -0.24 mm/cm
  •  Look at doca error in bins of theta



doca err

expanded resolution studies
Expanded resolution studies
  • How does resolution vary as a function of z and theta together?
  • Use doca error in bins of theta and z
  • But this is a two-peaked distribution (due to bonding difference)
    • Is the mean of the distribution adequate?
    • Fit to 2 Gaussians
  • Also look at material length in SVT
material length
Material Length

Total material seen by tracks in first 15cm (x-y) of flight (approx SVT radius)


For simplicity, I will look at the mean of this distribution

Caveat: This study looks at detector material path length in cm—not g/cm^2. I will work on getting that additional information.

(info comes from pathLength() method of DetIntersection)

material length ii
Material Length (II)

Mean of distribution from last page, binned in cos(theta) v z



First 15 cm (x-y) of flight

First 6 cm (x-y) of flight


Profiles: Material Length v z

6 cm of flight

15 cm of flight

(note suppressed zeros on y axes)

15 cm of flight


6 cm of flight


material length v z
Material Length v z
  • Conclusion: All show a negative slope, but very slight and consistent with zero within errors
    • Material length is not causing the resolution variation w.r.t. z
  • I need to look at mass thickness to confirm this conclusion

-1.2<z<0.93 (cm)


1.47<z<1.73 (cm)


Sample Fits

-1.2<z<0.93 (cm)


1.47<z<1.73 (cm)


theta and z dependence of doca error


Lower mean of doca err distribution (cm)

z (cm)

theta and z dependence of doca error
  • In the forward direction, this plot shows the resolution getting better as z increases
  • At lower cos(theta) this is less pronounced. (NB: transition from forw to backw tracks occurs at cos(theta)~0.5)
  • Lower mean correlates well with higher mean—high mean plot looks similar (see extra slide)

Resolution correction as a function of z only is probably not sufficient

Possible band of lower resolution diagonally across plot?

diagonal band

Average number of SVT hits in Layers 1,2,3:

All strips

Phi strips only

Diagonal Band?

(note expansion in z scale; outer bins statistically limited)

missing f hit in layer 1

Fraction of tracks w/a phi side hit in Layer 1


Missing f hit in Layer 1

z (cm)

Plug in x-y flight length l = 3.2 cm (min. radius of L1):

zL1 = z0 + l*tan(l) = z0 + 3.2*tan(p/2 – q) ~ 2.5 cm across the band

where do we go from here
Where do we go from here?
  • [GS correction: sy,corrected2 = sy,fit2 / (1+slopefit*z/interceptfit)2 ]
  • Incorporate the resolution directly into the PDF:
    • Replace sdoca2 = sx2*sin2(f) + sy2*cos2(f) with:
    • sdoca2 = sx2*sin2(f) + sy2*cos2(f) + sresolution2
  • sresolution is the doca error from the track fit adjusted by a resolution function
    • Resolution function comes from miss distance v doca error
      • To do: Study this function more completely (e.g. is the miss distance distribution really Gaussian?)
test new pdf
Test New PDF
  • First run simple toys on new PDF:
    • Generate data samples (Gaussian distributions of the fit parameters)
    • Make sure fit gives the expected results
    • In progress now
  • Next look at MC:
    • Start with default MCno hourglass effect
    • Generate MC with various beam distributions to test if fits return expected results
  • Understand the resolution variation in phi and see that the variation in z is more complicated than just a simple change with z
  • Strategy: Incorporate doca error directly into the fit (starting from GS’s original fit)  correct for resolution event-by-event
  • (alternately, use RMS miss distance in bins of theta, phi, and z)
  • First test in toys and MC, see if fit is stable and unbiased
  • Then try on data
track distribution in cos theta z plane
Track distribution in cos(theta) – z plane

(Note: there may be tracks in bins which show “0” (white) here. Only bins w/ more than a certain threshold of tracks (~50) were filled.)