1 / 39

EbE Vertexing for Mixing

EbE Vertexing for Mixing. Alex. Status. Increased sample’s statistics Full ~350 pb -1 D 0 , D + , K + , K*, ’ Primary Vertex : SF robustly sitting around 1.38 Dependencies (Z,Pt,Si hits,Ntracks) Effect of hourglass

junius
Download Presentation

EbE Vertexing for Mixing

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. EbE Vertexing for Mixing Alex

  2. Status • Increased sample’s statistics • Full ~350 pb-1 • D0, D+, K+, K*, ’ • Primary Vertex: • SF robustly sitting around 1.38 • Dependencies (Z,Pt,Si hits,Ntracks) • Effect of hourglass • G3X (no time to show today, but does not seem relevant with current statistics) • Systematics • Comparison of pulls and extraction of a common value: • D0 vs Lxy • Secondary Vertex: • Dependencies (Z,,, Pt,Lxy,ct, ,R,Isolation,Si hits) • Extraction of a common scale factor with systematics?

  3. Primary Vertex

  4. The tools • Prompt peak • V-truth • V1-V2 • d0/ B Lxy d0

  5. Scale Factor from V1-V2 • Fit two independent subsets of ‘primary’ [I.e. non-B] tracks • Measure (x1,y1,z1) and (x2,y2,z2) • Obtain / for x, y and z • Fit core with single gaussian (central value) • Repeat fit with two • gaussians (‘syst.’) • Still using 1.38 • For what follows

  6. Is the PVSF ‘universal’?

  7. Bottomline… • Scale factor shows no strong dependence on variables probed • Any other variable you want to see? • We could be more accurate but remember that the statistics is limited! • Focus on assessing systematics • Inter-sample • Vary fit model (just like the overall fit) • Will try to improve a little more on statistics (K, D), but mostly aiming at improving systematics

  8. We can use the B I.P. pulls as cross check of the Lxy resolution… Impact Parameters • Apply 1.38x and beamline constraint, check what happens: • For instance with D0: EbE: 1.351.15 EbE+SSvtx: 1.261.09 • PV scale factor is not the full story: when you bring down PV, the importance of SV increases • Need to get the SV scale factor right! • REM: even if PVSF=SVSF, we cannot use one common LxySF

  9. Impact Parameters & scale factors 1.38x on PV 1.38x on SV

  10. Secondary Vertex

  11. Scale factor from B decays • Example: BK+ • Fit  to a single vertex • “point”  back to K • Measure Lxy wrt B vertex • Pull is a proxy for a “seconday vertex” pull!   “Two” K B “One” Primary Vertex

  12. K K* Lxy(2) Pull K+ Lxy(2) Pull Two gauss. One Gaussian

  13. Charm… ’ “3-1” Lxy(2) Pull D+ Lxy(2) Pull Two gauss. One Gaussian

  14. ’ can be used in two different ways to probe SV ’ “2-2” Lxy(2) Pull “3-1” Two gauss. One Gaussian “2-2”

  15. ..and can be used also to probe the PV scale factor • Prompt production • Lxy wrt EbE is 0! 1.310.02 “1.38” 1.010.04

  16. Bottomline for SV • Hidden dependencies! • Detector acceptance? • Kinematics? • Multiplicity? (no: K*) • Figure out which distributions are different • Check dependency! …results in the next pages

  17. Pt of two Distributions Lxy Pull Z Ct of ‘one’ one’s Lxy  Of two Isol. (0.7) R Pt one’s tracks  Of two #stereo tracks #L00 tracks  Pt at <0.15 Pt at >0.15 • Detector acceptance (z) pretty similar • No clear difference in Si properties • Kinematics differs ( R Pt) • However…

  18. Pulls vs variables in prev. page Lxy Pull Z Pt of two Ct of ‘one’ one’s Lxy  Of two Isol. (0.7) R Pt one’s tracks  Of two #stereo tracks #L00 tracks  • Comparing ’ to average of other samples in each bin • Everything excluded except ct • Why? I can think of possible reasons, but in terms of bugs mostly! WORK IN PROGRESS Pt at <0.15 Pt at >0.15

  19. Ct and Lxy Ct(one) distribution Lxy(two) pulls vs ct(B) Lxy distribution Lxy(two) pulls vs Lxy(B) The problem does not show up with prompt objects!

  20. Ct(one) distribution D+ Montecarlo vs data Lxy(two) pulls vs ct(B) Lxy(one) distribution Lxy(two) pulls vs Lxy(B) The problem does not show up in montecarlo!

  21. ’ data vs D+ MC • They are compatible! • The ‘bug’ affects non-prompt data only!!!

  22. Is it in (Lxy) or in Lxy? Lxy mean (Lxy) mean Lxy/(Lxy) mean Lxy(D+) Lxy(D+) Lxy(D+) Lxy width (Lxy) width Lxy/(Lxy) width Lxy(D+) Lxy(D+) Lxy(D+)

  23. Same plots for ’ Lxy mean (Lxy) mean Lxy/(Lxy) mean Lxy(D+) Lxy(D+) Lxy(D+) Lxy width (Lxy) width Lxy/(Lxy) width Lxy(D+) Lxy(D+) Lxy(D+)

  24. Same plots for MC D+ Lxy mean (Lxy) mean Lxy/(Lxy) mean Lxy(D+) Lxy(D+) Lxy(D+) Lxy width (Lxy) width Lxy/(Lxy) width Lxy(D+) Lxy(D+) Lxy(D+)

  25. Secondary Vertex Conclusions, so far • We have enough statistics to study the SV scale factor • Dependency on ct unexpected • Problem shows up ‘only’ in long lived signal in data • it’s a pity that’s what we want to use for our analyses ;) • Semileptonic lifetime? • Working on finding the cause • Montecarlo: It works! • Investigate other variables in data (Impact parameter?) • Probe other samples (D0?) • Possible candidates: • Alignment • Scale factors? • This is the last pending big issue at the moment

  26. Moving along the plans for improvements! • Understand beamline parameterization: • Is it modeled correctly • Is it measured correctly  Include our best knowledge of it! • Are secondary vertex pulls ok? • Check with montecarlo truth • Use n-prong vertices (J/K, K+/0, K+/0) • Investigate dependencies (Pt, z,multiplicity, )with full statistics

  27. Plan • PV shows a very consistent picture • Finish up PV studies (~days): • re-run some ntuples to get full statistics in all cases • Including K, D • Use also BK background to get a source of studies for prompt Lxy pulls? • SV riddle to be solved! • I am working full steam on this. • Two more weeks according to schedule, to straighten everything out, document and insert in the blessing pipeline.

  28. Backup

  29. Outline • Current status • What was used for the mixing results • What is the current understanding of Ebe • Plans for improvements • How can we improve?

  30. Current status EbE: itearative track selection/pruning algorithm to provide an unbiased estimate of the PV position on an Event-by-Event basis • Hadronic analyses used a flat ~25um beamline! • Possible improvements: • Move to “hourglass” • Move to EbE • EbE + Hourglass • One of the ½ leptonic analyses used this with fixed hourglass parameters Hourglass

  31. What do we know about EbE? • Unbiased estimator of PVTX Reasonable (~5%) control of systematics

  32. Cross checks using I.P.(B) • Lxy involves three ingredients: • EbE • Secondary vertex • Beamline (in beamline constrained fits) Something funny when beamline is used! Scale factors work! Z dep. Beamline improves pulls! B Lxy d0

  33. Time dependence of Hourglass parameters Implementing DB access of time-dependent parameters

  34. What do we gain? Euphemism • 15-20% In vertex resolution! • Better control of systematics (hard to evaluate) • Correct EbE resolution (it is not clear that it is correct now) • Red arrow is the effect of 1. Only • Point 2. Affects mostly the green area (tiny ?) • Point 3. Has an effect qualitatively similar to 1., but hard to evaluate

  35. Hadronic analysis systematics ct scale factor 0.000 0.024 0.061 0.090 0.144

  36. Hourglass parameters from DBProfiles

  37. B Relative PV/BV contribution to d0 and Lxy pulls w w Lxy d0 • PV and BV are linear combinations of the same covariances (PV, SV), with different coefficients • Lxy sensitive to the major axis of SV • Relative weight of PV and SV covariances different for Lxy and d0 • Look at: Note:the two Lxy (or d0) pieces do not linearly add to 1!

  38. B Relative PV/BV contribution to IP and Lxy pulls Lxy d0 • Not Beam Constrained • Beam constrained • Beam constrained with run-dep. hourglass

  39. Bottomline: • SV and PV enter very differently in Lxy and d0 • Relative contribution depends strongly on PV and SV scales • Beam constraint squeezes the PV resolution significantly. Becomes second order on Lxy! • We are in a regime where the SV scale factor is critical! … now let’s get more quantitative!

More Related