220 likes | 360 Views
P. Massarotti. Charged kaon lifetime. Sammary:. Events selection Reconstruction efficiency t measure Conclusions. K. vtx. K mn tag. L i. K. m. Strategy. Signal selection Self triggering muon tag K track on the signal side Decay vertex
E N D
P. Massarotti Charged kaon lifetime
Sammary: • Events selection • Reconstruction efficiency • t measure • Conclusions
K vtx Kmn tag Li K m Strategy • Signal selection • Self triggering muon tag • K track on the signal side • Decay vertex • Signal K extrapolated to the IP. dE/dx correction applied along the path. Li = step length Vertex efficiency and resolution functions needed wrt the proper time of the Kaon
Tag self trg Tag self trg Trg eff Tag eff Why self-triggering tag?
Daughter P* with kaon mass hypothesis Definition of signal sample: • Cut at 100 MeV on boost with 96% efficiency70% signal 30% “bg” (not kaon bg less than 0.2 %)
Ep,xp,tp Eg,tg,xg p± xK pK lK Kmn tag tm t0 pK p0 Eg,tg,xg Reconstruction Efficiency: Neutral vertex technique • Considering only kaon decays with a p0 K X p0 X gg We lookfor the vertex asking • clusters on time: (t - r/c)g1 = (t – r/c)g2 • p0 invariant mass • agreement between kaon flight time and clusters time
charged daughter kaon Efficiency measures eG = eTrK eTr sec eV • 1 2
MC reco MC kine Efficency comparison MonteCarlo kine vs MonteCarlo reco fit window definition Fit window 15 : 30 ns aG = (101.7 0.7) x10-2 bG = (-.59 3.6) x10-3 T (ns) T (ns)
aTr K = (96.25 0.32) x10-2 bTr K = (.98 .14) x10-3 true MC reco MC aVTX = (101.50 0.41) x10-2 bVTX = (.83 .20) x10-3 true MC reco MC true MC reco MC Method 2: tracking & vertexing T (ns) T (ns)
Paolo Massarotti Kloe general meeting 28 october 2004 New efficency comparison new cuts to select neutral and charged vertex • fiducial volume (40 < r <150) cm , | z | < 150 cm MC reco MC kine
New efficency comparison MonteCarlo kine vs MonteCarlo reco larger fit window aG = (96.0 0.4) x10-2 bG = (-.65 1.9) x10-3 aG = (94.2 0.8) x10-2 bG = (-.06 2.3) x10-3
Method 2: tracking efficency MonteCarlo kine vs MonteCarlo reco larger fit window MC reco MC kine MC reco MC kine MC reco MC kine
Method 2: tracking efficency MonteCarlo kine vs MonteCarlo reco larger fit window aTRK = (100.4 0.2) x10-2 bTRK = (-.19 0.7) x10-3 aTRK = (100.0 0.2) x10-2 bTRK = (-.8 0.9) x10-4
Method 2: vertexing efficency MonteCarlo kine vs MonteCarlo reco larger fit window MC reco MC kine MC reco MC kine
Method 2: vertexing efficency MonteCarlo kine vs MonteCarlo reco larger fit window aVTX = (96.3 0.3) x10-2 bVTX = (-.48 .17) x10-3 aVTX = (94.3 0.6) x10-2 bVTX = (-.28 .27) x10-3
Two methods compared:MC aConf = (99.3 0.9) x10-2 bConf = (.17 .39) x10-3 global product
Two methods compared: Data aconf = (98.9 0.9) x10-2 bconf = (.21 .39) x10-3 global product
Data and MonteCarlo compared reco MC Data
Data and MonteCarlo compared reco MC Data
MCtmeasure and residual evaluation T+MC = (12.36 ± 0.03) ns T+MC = (12.36 ± 0.07) ns
MCtmeasure and residual evaluation T-MC = (12.36 ± 0.03) ns T-MC = (12.37 ± 0.07) ns
Conclusions We have studied decay reconstruction efficiency We have to complete the measure on data (smearing factors) Work is in progress for the “time” measurement