1 / 13

Philip Rodrigues Oxford MINOS Group Meeting 5 Feb 08

Data/Monte Carlo disagreement for Rustem’s Signal Fluctuation variable in the Far Detector (Working Title) Part 2. Philip Rodrigues Oxford MINOS Group Meeting 5 Feb 08. Low/High variable. Rationale: muon tracks small variation between planes, non-muon tracks larger variation Construction:

lavender
Download Presentation

Philip Rodrigues Oxford MINOS Group Meeting 5 Feb 08

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. Data/Monte Carlo disagreement for Rustem’s Signal Fluctuation variable in the Far Detector(Working Title)Part 2 Philip Rodrigues Oxford MINOS Group Meeting 5 Feb 08

  2. Low/High variable • Rationale: muon tracks small variation between planes, non-muon tracks larger variation • Construction: • Exclude first 30% of track planes (to veto shower) • Find window around reco’d track: ±4 strips, ±40ns • Take all strips in this window (track and non-track) • Sort these strips by PH • Find mean PH of lower half, mean PH of upper half • Low/High = mean of lower half / mean of upper half

  3. Outline • ND Low/High problem fairly well studied • FD still uncertain • Various ad hoc cuts help • Crosstalk looks promising • This week: • Is it track modelling or detector modelling?

  4. Crosstalk • Fixes up low/high distribution • Doesn’t fix up everything else • Not conclusive: • model is more complicated than the one param I changed!

  5. A suggestive distribution • Additional small hits are at ±1-2 strips from track • Diagonal xtalk can jump 1 strip • But so can physics

  6. ( ) A mini mystery • Excess of tiny (<0.6 pe) hits in data • Looks like crosstalk

  7. (De)Muxing Tubes 0,2 Tube 1

  8. Crosstalk vs Physics • Muxing pattern helps: • Simplistic way: P(hit on pixel i | hit on pixel j ) • Data/MC:

  9. Crosstalk vs Physics 2 • Less simplistic: P(small hit on pixel i | track hit on pixel j) • 9/6 pair goes opposite way on different tubes! • Not very significant (see backup slides)

  10. More stats! • Cosmics could improve significance, but angular dist, etc • ND PMTs, electronics different, but physics should still show… NN xtalk/afterpulsing No ±1 strip excess! (Normalized to #events)

  11. Tentative conclusion • Extra hits at ±1 strip consistent with crosstalk • But low stats crosstalk map seems to disagree • ND shows no extra hits at ±1 strip • Not physics • Believe the ND over my ad hoc crosstalk map: • Effect is not physics

  12. Backup • Pull plots for small given track

  13. Backup 2 • Pull plots for any given any

More Related