1 / 40

Status Report on 

Status Report on . C. Di Donato, B. Di Micco, M. Jacewicz. Phi-Decay WG Meeting February 9 2010. Outline. Analysis Data-MC comparison Momenta Smearing Evaluation of systematics Discussion with referee New smearing method

gamada
Télécharger la présentation

Status Report on 

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. Status Report on  C. Di Donato, B. Di Micco, M. Jacewicz Phi-Decay WG Meeting February 9 2010

  2. Outline • Analysis • Data-MC comparison • Momenta Smearing • Evaluation of systematics • Discussion with referee • New smearing method • Track efficiency correction applied on MC (as in the Memo343); • Cross-check with Kinematic fit • PCV EVCL vs tracks selected in the analysis

  3. Analysis • Event Signature: • 2 Prompt Neutral Clusters: |tcl-lcl/c|<5t • Recoil photon: most energetic cluster with E250 MeV • 2 tracks closest to IP (using PCA, no vertex requirement) • Kinematical Constraints: • Two body decay kinematics to calculate E recoil •  kinematics to calculate  • : |Et-Pt|<10 MeV (EtPt) • Best Photon: we choose one PNC with <0.13 rad to the calculated (OPAN) • Background: main one is 0: M(M • in the 0 rest frame cos • Only barrel • TOF(Time Of Flight cut to reject bhabha background)-ANGLE

  4. DATA-MC comparison and MC smearing Let’s go back to the smearing, starting from control sample selected to check Data-MC: • selected using reversed cut on cos • we look at missing mass from p+p-

  5. Data – MC and smearing: first approach Missing mass on control sample We find discrepancy and try to solve smearing the Pt OLD APPROACH

  6. After Smearing OLD APPROACH

  7. After Smearing Only  background is included All background is included Residual discrepancy on the right tail. Smearing method? Background estimation? OLD APPROACH

  8. Data-MC comparison qpp qpp Opening angle between  qpp

  9. Data-MC comparison Mpp (MeV) Mpp (MeV)  Invariant Mass Mpp (MeV)

  10. Data-MC Pp (MeV) Pp (MeV) P Pp (MeV)

  11. Data-MC qp qp  qp

  12. Summary on Systematics After smearing systematics for angular cuts remains practically unchanged. We look at cosand cos(OpAn) for  cluster also in the transverse variable

  13. Summary on Systematics Only transverse angle xy plane Full cos

  14. Summary on Systematics Cos(Full OpAn ) Only transverse angle

  15. The situation is much better, systematic reduced from 1-2% to 1-2 per mil, the price we pay is the background contamination: OPAN–Cos–ANGLE–TOF–onlybarrel: Cut Eff = 25.67% Signal events = 564765, PHI Bkg = 6.7% ETA Bkg = 30% OPAN–Cos–ANGLE–TOF–onlybarrel–EtPt: Cut Eff = 24.89% Signal events = 547759, PHI Bkg = 3% ETA Bkg = 0.2% TransOPAN–CosTrans–ANGLE–TOF–onlybarrel: Cut Eff = 24.26% Signal events = 533938, PHI Bkg = 25% ETA Bkg = 120% TransOPAN–CosTrans–ANGLE–TOF–onlybarrel–EtPt: Cut Eff = 22.98% Signal events = 505692, PHI Bkg = 11% ETA Bkg = 1% OLD CUTS: NEW CUTS:

  16. New Systematics Transverse cos OK

  17. New Systematics Cos(Transv. OpAn ) OK

  18. New Systematics Et-Pt The systematic on Et-Pt doesn't change.

  19. New Systematics E-P

  20. Spectra after smearing

  21. Spectra before smearing

  22. Unbiased sample: only preselection

  23. Outline (II) • New data sample to “play with” • 560 pb-1 preselected with basic conditions: to study smearing effect we introduce less kinematic constraints, and ask only ≥2 Prompt Neutral Cluster, one with E≥250MeV • This sample was used for the recent study of systematics and new smearing

  24. What’s new: Different approach for the momenta:we take into account curv from DTFS cov matrix Better fitting We use the smearing function: Full fit with 3 params: 1) Total Scale: 0.8808 2) shift: 337.8 • 10-6 3) smearing: 0.1470

  25. Smearing: Old method versus New NEW: Full fit with 3 parameters: Total Scale, shift, smearing OLD: simple method each parameter Fitted separately

  26. E – P cut problemEven with new smearing we do not get satisfactory comparison with MC    eeg continuum Unbiased sample: only preselection Now is clear the problem is on the background estimation

  27. We try to fit the Et-Pt (E–P) spectrum to see if the discrepancy is due to a bad Signal/Background estimation Data – MC.

  28. E-P: with all MC contributionssatisfying agreement

  29. Output from TFractionFitter (1200bins in the histograms)   eeg continuum  2 = 1728 Ndf = 1196

  30. After smearing and fit… • Data-MC satisfying agreement • Branching ratio stability and Systematic seems to be under control, we are reevaluating the systematics. Other checks: • kinematic fit • Prompt Charged Vertex from EVCL

  31. Kinematic fit 21 Input Parameters: 2 PNC: 2  5 = 10 parameters 2 tracks at PCA: 2  3 = 6 parameters IP position: 3 parameters Beam info: 2 parameters 7 Constraints: Time of flight of photons: 2 4-momentum conservation: 4  invariant mass

  32. RAD Stream • DATA-MC comparison • 2 distribution • Analysys cut: • RAD • OPAN • Cos • ANGLE • TOF • Onlybarrel • EtPt 

  33. RPI Stream • DATA-MC comparison • 2 distribution • Analysys cut: • RAD • OPAN • Cos • ANGLE • TOF • Onlybarrel • EtPt 

  34. RAD True-Rec True-Fit RAD Stream P+ (Ptrue-Pfit) (Ptrue-Prec) P- (Ptrue-Prec) (Ptrue-Pfit)

  35. RPI True-Rec True-Fit RPI Stream P+ (Ptrue-Pfit) (Ptrue-Prec) P- (Ptrue-Prec) (Ptrue-Pfit)

  36. PCV Check: EVCL requirement on VTX • PCV means there is the VTX as from EVCL requirement • Match means the tracks we choose are the one connected to PCV

  37. Conclusions • DATA-MC: the agreement is satisfying; systematics and BR seems to be under control: we are recomputing • For us everithing is ok and we are ready to produce final number and documentation, if we are below 1%: TOF systematic still to be studied. • Kinematic fit does not improve resolution and background reduction, moreover the c2 distribution shows disagrement at 2-5% level (well beyond our target) • We can apply PCV requirement, in RAD stream, we do not use extra VTX info; use Roberto and Antonio work on tracks/vtx

  38. Spare

  39. Fitting with fraction fitter seems better (but fit probability still low)

  40. E

More Related