1 / 25

Photon energy smearing from      events

Photon energy smearing from      events. Glen Cowan , Sudan Paramesvaran, David Hopkins, Henning Flaecher Royal Holloway, University of London. EMC Calibration Meeting 6 Sept 2006. Context. Follows on from resolution studies by David, Henning, Sudan.

mikasi
Télécharger la présentation

Photon energy smearing from      events

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. Photon energy smearing from  events Glen Cowan, Sudan Paramesvaran, David Hopkins, Henning Flaecher Royal Holloway, University of London EMC Calibration Meeting 6 Sept 2006

  2. Context Follows on from resolution studies by David, Henning, Sudan. Same mmgn-tuples and selection as before, see e.g. David Hopkins talk 5 April 06 at EMC software meeting: 2 ‘good’ measured tracks 1 ‘good’ measured photon 1 identified m (loose) Kinematic fit c2 prob > 0.05 184 fb-1 → 1.2 million events

  3. Goal of study For the photon in the mmg events we have Emeas measured by the calorimeter Efit from the kinematic fit Histograms of x = Emeas/Efit found to have high-x tail, especially for higher Eg Goal: (Roodman, Kocian, ...) try smearing MC photon energies to give better data/MC agreement.

  4. Method (1) Scale to same area as data histogram Try to smear MC so that it looks like data, i.e., find a pdf s(z) such that y + z ~ f(x) Find For x = y + z

  5. Method (2) For x = y + z we have where In terms of the histograms this is Find For a parameterized pdf s(z;q ) we therefore have original MC smeared MC smearing matrix

  6. Method (3) Try for smearing pdf: Gaussian Student’s t For Student’s t, n controls extent of tails n = ∞ is Gaussian, n = 1 is Cauchy Use binned ML but for now ignore MC statistical errors, equivalent to minimizing

  7. Gaussian fit Student’s t fit

  8. Gaussian fit Student’s t fit

  9. Gaussian fit Student’s t fit

  10. Gaussian fit Student’s t fit

  11. Gaussian fit Student’s t fit

  12. Gaussian fit Student’s t fit

  13. Gaussian fit Student’s t fit

  14. Gaussian fit Student’s t fit

  15. Gaussian fit Student’s t fit

  16. Gaussian fit Student’s t fit

  17. Gaussian fit Student’s t fit

  18. Gaussian fit Student’s t fit

  19. Gaussian fit Student’s t fit

  20. Gaussian fit Student’s t fit

  21. Gaussian fit parameters

  22. Student’s t fit parameters For 1.0 < E < 1.5 GeV, →∞ (consistent with Gaussian).

  23. Andrew Wagner, 29 Aug 06 Neutrals meeting, showed similar study with L/R asymmetric Gaussian smearing:

  24. Andrew Wagner, 29 Aug 06 Neutrals meeting:

  25. From here, Parameterize the fitted parameters vs energy, (e.g. polynomial), then for each photon generate z ~ s(z;q(E)) and replace E→ E (1 + z) Resulting distribution will not be exactly equal to smeared MC from fit due to several approximations made, but should be close. To what extent are the tails due solely to EMC response? Are they in part caused by, e.g., modeling of tracking, backgrounds,...? Some further steps: investigate angular dependence, refine E binning, need more MC data (also use more real data?), check effect on other quantities, e.g., p0 peak

More Related