200 likes | 326 Views
MCP checks for the H-4l mass. Outline and work program. The problems: Higgs mass difference from the gg Possible single resonant peak mass shift (with low stat) M12 in the 2mu2e channel shifted MCP checks (to be finalized): Muon absolute mass scale Overall Momentum scale
E N D
Outline and work program • The problems: • Higgs mass difference from the gg • Possible single resonant peak mass shift (with low stat) • M12 in the 2mu2e channel shifted • MCP checks (to be finalized): • Muon absolute mass scale • Overall Momentum scale • Local misalignments • Per Event mass error • Work program
The main problem Inconsistency between the two masses 2.7 s
Other “features” in the H-4l analysis Fully relaxed analysis to increase stat: M34>0 All Pt>4 GeV Mass increased from 89.4 -> 90.4 For 2011 we have MC without cuts Mass DT = 91.0 ± 0.8 GeV Mass MC = 91.1 • Z-4 Leptons • Single resonant Distributions Apparent shift in the the single resonant mass spectra with standard analysis cuts Increasing stat Mass increased from 89.4 -> 90.4
M12 Distributions Very good agreement on M12 with 4 mu Disagreement in tails of M12 for 2mu2e events
M12 in 2mu2e events • Fit crystal-ball conv. BW • cbmean shift w.r.t. MC mass value • Diif = 0.8 ± 0.5
MCP Checks: Absolute scale using Z events MC Data • Template fit of the Z mass (DT and MC) • Results given as Scale factors to be applied to the PDG mass value in different eta region. • To be finalized using Z in different Pt ranges Error on these numbers : Max 10-3
Z reconstruction different Pt regions Data-MC agree at the level of about 100 MeV over the full Pt range Disclaimer this is NOT a measurement of the Z mass as in the previous page so we are NOT looking at agreement between PDG value and fit.
MCP Checks: Mass scale vs Pt End Cap A • Reconstruct Z Mass for data and MC as a function of leading muon Pt • Plot difference DT-MC difference vs Pt for ID, MS and CB reconstruction • Mean difference < 0.2% stable over data taking period and Pt. • Same results on the other end cap and Barrel • To be done • Enlarge the Pt coverage to lower Pt. • Cross check the results with J/Psi and Y data. Standalone Combined ID
MCP Checks: Pt scale vs Pt End Cap A Data [PT(SA)-PT(ID)]–MC[PT(SA)-PT(ID)] • Plot difference between DT and MC of the measured Pt in ID and MS and in ID and Cb • Difference 100 MeV for Sa-ID stable over data taking period and Pt. • Same results on the other end cap and on the barrel • To be done • Enlarge the Pt coverage to lower Pt. • Cross check the results with J/Psi and Y data. • Check charge dependent distributions Standalone Data [PT(CB)-PT(ID)]–MC[PT(CB)-PT(ID)] Combined
Checks with J/Psi and Y • Different studies done with J/Psi and Y • Some small inconsistencies between them to be understood • General picture: • Also from J/Psi absolute scale of the CB muons is at the 0.2% level • J/psi Mass measured with SA muons shows a max 40 MeV discrepancy Y
Local misalignment Studying curvature offsets as a function of detector region
Effect of local misalignment • Select Z samples with positive muon and Z sample with negative muon going into the problematic region • Plot the quantity q(M(mm)-Mz) • Evident shift between the two distribution (about 1.5 GeV) • Due to the MS-ID Z misalignment (See next slides) • Both SA and ID measurement do not show this problem (CB only problem)
Assessing the magnitude of the effect • Correct the effect in two ways: • Downweight the Z measurement in the MS covariance matrix • Correct ZME and ThetaME for the measured misalignment.
Option 1: Downweight Z ME Bias greatly reduced proving that the effect is (mainly) given by the MS ID Z misalignment
Option 2: Correct for Z and Theta Same result on Z mass Will check if there are other local effects: ex:Study width of Z mass vs eta and phi
Effect of local misalignment and corrections The correction has no effect on the overall momentum scale and negligible effect on mass resolution
Proposed systematics • Reprocessed the ZZ candidates with the Z and Theta corrections • One candidate moves by 1.7 GeV • The average of the distribution (simple average no weighting) moves by less than 300 MeV • Propose to use this method to assess the systematic error due to local misalignment.
Per event mass error • Work started: • Retrive momentum error per muon using standard MCP resolution and smearing tool and propagate it in the Mass formula.
Short term program • Finalize absolute mass scale measurement with Z also as function of pt • Determine the systematic error to be assigned to the absolute mass scale • Obtain coherency of results of J/PSI studies and between J/Psi and Z studies in the low Pt regime • Continue checking for local misalignment other than the Z and assess systematic error for the Z misalignment • Understand the per event error and the discrepancy on the mass error obtained in the “ standard analysis” and the first results from the analysis using per event errors.