1 / 19

Status of K ±  p ± p 0

Status of K ±  p ± p 0. E. De Lucia. Strategy. Self-tag on one side using K - (nuclear interactions) Vertex with 2 tracks in DC on the signal side. PDG fit BR(K ±  p ± p 0 ) = (21,13 ± 0.14)% D BR/BR = 6,6x10 -3

meagan
Télécharger la présentation

Status of K ±  p ± p 0

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 of K± p±p0 E. De Lucia

  2. Strategy • Self-tag on one side using K- (nuclear interactions) • Vertex with 2 tracks in DC on the signal side PDG fit BR(K±p±p0) = (21,13 ± 0.14)% DBR/BR = 6,6x10-3 CHIANG ’72 BR(K±p±p0) = (21,18 ± 0.28)%DBR/BR = 1,3x10-2 Method: Fitting the distribution of the momentum of the secondary track (p*) in the kaon reference frame we can extract BR(K±p±p0) • The selection efficiency is only related to DC reconstruction: • tracking efficiency • vertex efficiency

  3. The method • mn peak: p*(p mass) distribution from “m-cluster” sample • pp0 peak: p*(p mass) distribution requiring the p0 • 3-body decays: p*(p mass) distribution from MC fit window p* cut

  4. pp0shape (1) p0.and.180 < E p0 < 230 MeV .and. cosq < -0.95 .and. (Emiss-Pmiss)< 30 .and. |tof_mass2| < 104 MeV p*(MeV)

  5. pp0shape (2) MC DATA Systematic uncertainty can be estimated from the fluctuation of Npp0 obtained from the shape obtained varying the previous cuts

  6. Fit stability • “run by run” : MC runs for 2002 data have been divided in 12 groups called “runs” • 2) “by range” : changing the starting point of the fit window • from 150 MeV up to 190 MeV using 5 MeV steps • 3) “by shape” : using different shapes for the pp0 peak • obtained changing the selection cuts Compare the MC true numbers with : a) Npp0/Ntag from the fit b) Npp0/Ntag from the fit corrected for p* window cut (correction from pp0 “data-like” shape …agreement with pp0 MC true shape )

  7. Fit stability: “run by run” (I) “Run number” “Run number”

  8. Fit stability: “run by run” (II) “Run number” “Run number”

  9. Fit stability: “by range” (I) different fit window different fit window

  10. Fit stability: “by range” (II) different fit window different fit window

  11. Fit stability: “by shape” (I) different shape different shape

  12. Fit stability: “by shape” (II) different shape different shape

  13. Reconstruction efficiencies Vertex efficiency from neutral vtx sample Kaon tracking efficiency extrapolating from tag side thetaK pK P secondary (MeV) With MC 2002 :

  14. Stability vs fit window (lower edge from 150 to 190 MeV) Using the MC (2002) pp0 mn

  15. Using the DATA (2002) Stability vs fit window (lower edge from 150 to 190 MeV) pp0 mn p*(MeV)

  16. Zoom on the peaks mn pp0

  17. To do list • Concerning the fit: • Finalize systematic uncertainty on the fit results • using the “by shape” stability on data • Concerning efficiencies: • Vertex is healthy • next step : use kinematic fit • 2) Tracking now using overall number (all decay channels) • next step: work on neutral vertex sample to get directly the efficiency for pp0 decay • 3) efficiencies on run by run basis to study stability of B.R. measurements

  18. B.R.’s vs 2002 data taking periods Using corrections for data efficiencies but mean MC corrections for each point … need MC corrections for different periods possible with the 1:1 MC production

  19. Using DATA 2002

More Related