1 / 18

Diffractive MC for the F L analysis

Diffractive MC for the F L analysis. Valentina Sola. RAPGAP MC. New sample of RAPGAP from Num07t2.0 FUNNEL version:  pomeron exchange only (http://www-zeus.desy.de/~vsola/ZEUS_ONLY/FLD/rapgap/funnel/fw/rapgapIP.txt)  reggeon excange only

denton-mcdowell
Download Presentation

Diffractive MC for the F L analysis

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. Diffractive MCfor the FL analysis Valentina Sola

  2. RAPGAP MC New sample of RAPGAP from Num07t2.0 FUNNEL version:  pomeron exchange only (http://www-zeus.desy.de/~vsola/ZEUS_ONLY/FLD/rapgap/funnel/fw/rapgapIP.txt)  reggeon excange only (http://www-zeus.desy.de/~vsola/ZEUS_ONLY/FLD/rapgap/funnel/fw/rapgapIP.txt) Kinematic region of the new sample: 4 < Q2 < 200 GeV2 0.03 < y < 0.98 σIP = 26.263 nb → LIP = 38.076 pb-1 for 1M of events σIR = 9.229 nb → LIR = 108.352 pb-1 for 1M of events FL Rewiew - 29/04/2008

  3. Agreement between DATA & RAPGAP (Have a look to the November '07 Diffractive Monthly Meeting or see Backup) DIS variavles: difference in normalization Diffractive variables: difference in shape and normalization Need to understand RAPGAP IR normalization DD Monte Carlo is still missing  Work ongoing to understand difference between DATA and RAPGAP FL Rewiew - 29/04/2008

  4. Backup FL Rewiew - 29/04/2008

  5. Rapgap Check (ηMAX selection) - I ― old = Num03t3.1 / “offline” trigger ―new = Num07t1.0 / SPP15-16 Q2e xe FL Rewiew - 29/04/2008

  6. Rapgap Check (ηMAX selection) - II ― old = Num03t3.1 / “offline” trigger ―new = Num07t1.0 / SPP15-16 ye Ee’ FL Rewiew - 29/04/2008

  7. Rapgap Check (ηMAX selection) - III ― old = Num03t3.1 / “offline” trigger ―new = Num07t1.0 / SPP15-16 MX xIP FL Rewiew - 29/04/2008

  8. Rapgap Check (ηMAX selection) - IV ― old = Num03t3.1 / “offline” trigger ―new = Num07t1.0 / SPP15-16 β W FL Rewiew - 29/04/2008

  9. ηMAX Distribution → Loss of MC in the diffractive region DD in MC still missing → MC peak shifted with respect to DATA FL Rewiew - 29/04/2008

  10. Control Plots for ηMAX < 2.2 - I xEL Q2EL yEL Ee (MC = DJANGOH + PYTHIA + RAPGAP IP from Num03t3.1) DD Monte Carlo missing FL Rewiew - 29/04/2008

  11. Control Plots for ηMAX < 2.2 - II xIP MX β W Difference between DATA and MC DATA = 102530 / MC = 75140 → 27% less than DATA FL Rewiew - 29/04/2008

  12. Control Plots for ηMAX < 2.2 - I xEL Q2EL yEL Ee (MC = RAPGAP IP + RAPGAP IR from Num07t1.0) DD Monte Carlo missing FL Rewiew - 29/04/2008

  13. Control Plots for ηMAX < 2.2 - II xEL Q2EL yEL Ee (MC = RAPGAP IP + RAPGAP IR from Num07t1.0) DD Monte Carlo missing FL Rewiew - 29/04/2008

  14. Control Plots for ηMAX < 2.2 - III xIP Mx β W (MC = RAPGAP IP + RAPGAP IR from Num07t1.0) DD Monte Carlo missing FL Rewiew - 29/04/2008

  15. Control Plots for ηMAX < 2.2 - IV xIP Mx β W (MC = RAPGAP IP + RAPGAP IR from Num07t1.0) DD Monte Carlo missing FL Rewiew - 29/04/2008

  16. Kinematic Coverage of DATA (ηMAX > 2.2) Q2 vs xIP Q2 vs β Q2 vs y β vs xIP LDATA = 41.5 pb-1 FL Rewiew - 29/04/2008

  17. Kinematic Coverage of RAPGAP IP (ηMAX > 2.2) Q2 vs xIP Q2 vs β Q2 vs y β vs xIP LRAPGAP IP = 37.3 pb-1 FL Rewiew - 29/04/2008

  18. Kinematic Coverage of RAPGAP IR (ηMAX > 2.2) Q2 vs xIP Q2 vs β CAMBIARE Q2 vs y β vs xIP LRAPGAP IR = 66.5 pb-1 FL Rewiew - 29/04/2008

More Related