1 / 22

Acceptance Corrections: Bin-by-Bin Method vs. Matrix Conversion Method

Acceptance Corrections: Bin-by-Bin Method vs. Matrix Conversion Method. Nikolay Markov, Brandon Clary and Kyungseon Joo University of Connecticut CLAS Collaboration Meeting March 8, 2018. Acceptance Corrections. Unfold true distributions from measured distributions. Bin-by-bin method

valeria
Download Presentation

Acceptance Corrections: Bin-by-Bin Method vs. Matrix Conversion Method

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. Acceptance Corrections: Bin-by-Bin Method vs. Matrix Conversion Method Nikolay Markov, Brandon Clary and Kyungseon Joo University of Connecticut CLAS Collaboration Meeting March 8, 2018

  2. Acceptance Corrections Unfold true distributions from measured distributions

  3. Bin-by-bin method Di = AiTi Di is # of measured events in i-th bin Tiis # of true events in i-th bin Ai is the acceptance of i-th bin where Ai = NREC / NGEN for i-th bin 2. Matrix Method Di ∑Mij Tj Mijis the acceptance matrix where =/ Acceptance Corrections

  4. Di = AiTi Di is # of measured events in i-th bin Tiis # of true events in i-th bin Ai is the acceptance of i-th bin where 1. =/for i-th bin 2. =from =/ Bin-by-Bin Method

  5. Beam energy: 10.6 GeV • W flat, [1.0: 5.0] GeV • Electron lab f angle flat, [0: 360] degrees • Q2 [1.0: 10.0] GeV2 • Flat • 1/ Q4 • sin(2*Q2) + 1.5 3 Simple Event Generators (Inclusive scattering)

  6. Generated Events

  7. GEMC 4a.2.1 • Coatjava 4a.8.3 • Torus - 100% • Solenoid - 100% • MICROMEGAS in • Electron PID: • EB electron id • Fiducial cut Simulation and reconstruction

  8. Fiducial Cut

  9. Q2 W Resolutions sQ2 = 0.02 GeV2 sW = 10 MeV

  10. : Total acceptance Acceptances and Purity : Pure acceptance : Migrated acceptance

  11. sQ2 = 0.02 GeV2 Acceptances vs. Models 0 10.0

  12. sQ2 = 0.02 GeV2 Purity vs. Models 0 10.0

  13. sQ2 = 0.02 GeV2 Purity vs. Acceptances 0 10.0

  14. Iterative Unfolding using Bin-by-Bin MethodN. Harrison PhD Thesis for pion SIDIS

  15. Large bin size may result in a loss of sensivity to high frequency components or acute changes. Small bin size may create high sensitive to bin migrations and event generator dependence. Bin Size Matters

  16. Matrix Method Di ∑Mij Tj where =/

  17. Metrix Method 10 Bins

  18. Metrix Method 50 Bins

  19. We showed that acceptance is sensitive to event generator models due to bin-migrations even for binnings with much larger than tracking resolution bin sizes. • We need to avoid bins with very low purity values to minimize systematic errors. • We showed that matrix conversion method is less sensitive to event generator models due to bin-migrations, but it is difficult to implement it for multi-dimensional analysis. Summary

  20. GEN REC Generated Events vs. Reconstructed Events REC GEN

More Related