1 / 39

Center of mass energy determination from Z g events

Center of mass energy determination from Z g events. Introduction/ motivation. Selection, measurement method. Results 189GeV-207GeV. Systematic Error- Focus on: fragmentation. ISR simulation. detector effects. Other LEP experiments results. Benjamin Trocmé LAPP Annecy.

shiloh
Download Presentation

Center of mass energy determination from Z g 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. Center of mass energy determination from Zg events • Introduction/ motivation. • Selection, measurement method. • Results 189GeV-207GeV. • Systematic Error- Focus on: • fragmentation. • ISR simulation. • detector effects. • Other LEP experiments results. Benjamin Trocmé LAPP Annecy

  2. Motivation to measure beam energy • Last Aleph W mass measurement sent to Moriond 2001: • Systematic correlated between all channels and experiments!!

  3. Classical determination of Ebeam • Magnetic field measurement with NMR probes; calibrated at low energy with resonant depolarisation+extrapolation. • Linear behaviour of NMR probes checked by flux loop.

  4. Classical determination of Ebeam(2) • Alternative methods to constraint high energy region: • spectrometer + Qs measurement: performed during dedicated periods. Final results not yet published. • Zg analysis.

  5. Zg analysis: principle • Z resonance still very important at LEP2 with radiative return processes: • Z resonance parameters well known  extract . • Analysis started by Eugeni Grauges: • paper published at 183GeV. • presentation in Thursday meeting 13/1/2000.

  6. Considered events • 3 types of events: • e+e-qq + g undetected • e+e-qq + g detected • e+e-m+m- +g undetected

  7. e+e-qq + g undetected

  8. e+e-qq + g detected

  9. e+e- m+m- +g undetected

  10. Extraction of x • Classical selection leading to high level of purity (~90%). • x=1-s’/s: fraction of beam energy by ISR photon deduced: • muonic channel:classical angle formulae • hadronic channel: kinematic reconstruction, taking into account jet energies. When detected,photon axis is • considered.

  11. Reweighting fit • Use of similar method as W mass measurement to extract Ecm. • Reference Monte Carlo: KK2f. • Main constraint: peak position.

  12. Result at 188.6GeV: e+e-qq + g undetected. • Parabolic • behaviour

  13. Result at 188.6GeV: e+e- m+m- + g undetected.

  14. Analysis between 189GeV and 207GeV • One per energy/ channel. • Combination of new quantity: • Statistical error: Ezg only. • Systematic error: ELEP and Ezg. • Uncorrelated between ELEP and Ezg. • 100% correlated between years.

  15. e+e-qq + g undetected e+e-qq + g detected

  16. e+e- m+m- +g undetected General combination • 2.3s

  17. Systematic error • Procedure follows as much as possible the one used for W mass.

  18. LEP simulation • Angles between beams: • 1mrad (overestimated) would lead to 4MeV bias. • Energy dispersion in a given sample • related systematic ~ 3MeV • Differences of energies between Ee+ and Ee- • additionnal boost (24MeV in 98): no impact on peak position; only on resolution.

  19. Fragmentation • Used samples: • 500K of kk2f hadronised with Jetset. • 500K of kk2f hadronised with Herwig v6.2, using Kinagain facility. • 48 pseudo experiments with 2 different reference samples.

  20. Fragmentation (2) • bias consistent with observed by Opal: • Need further investigations (DMW<15MeV).

  21. ISR simulation • KK2f is known to be the most achieved available Monte Carlo: • includes ISR/FSR interference for muons in CEEX scheme. • higher order of correction. • simulates beam energy spread.

  22. ISR simulation(2) KoralZ KK2f KK2f • Corrections (a2L)>corr.(a3L3) • CEEX at order (a2) is more accurate than EEX at order (a3).

  23. ISR simulation(3) • Procedure to estimate ISR systematic. • Reference: CEEX at order (a2). • Observe bias when degrading computation by two different ways: • CEEX at order (a1). • EEX at order (a3). • Very easy to do in KK2f (weighting procedure).

  24. ISR simulation in hadronic channel • CEEX at order (a1). • EEX at order (a3). • Impact < 20MeV: order of magnitude expected by Jadach.

  25. Detector effects:preliminary remarks • Why is Zg measurement so sensitive to detector effect?? • Very characteristic topology due to Z0 boost: • many objects with cos(Q)~0.7-0.8. • Most of events have pair of jets contained in one half space. or

  26. Another typical Zg event

  27. Detector effects:preliminary remarks(2) • (ECM) a (jets opening angle) • 2mrad • 220MeV!! • Opening angle sensitivity increases with Ecm.

  28. Jet angular bias • Estimated by comparing tracks content to photon content. • 2mrad!! • This a non signed bias estimate: add or subtract to jet angles. • Will systematically increase/decrease opening angle

  29. Jet angular bias impact(2) • 96 pseudo experiments at 189GeV • Huge effect: 147MeV(combined)!

  30. Jet angular bias (3) • Historically, previous function was chosen to estimate the largest potential effect. • was found to be important for Zg. • Why is it so small for W? • no systematic effect on opening angle: Opening angle Opening angle increased decreased

  31. Calorimeter simulation • Apply W mass procedure: perform 48 pseudo experiments with 2 different Monte Carlo: • reference. • shaken calorimeters. • Rescaling depends on polar angle and is performed before jet clustering • angle are modified.

  32. Calorimeter simulation(2) • Impact on Zg measurement between 98MeV and 128MeV depending on sample. • All samples combined:109MeV

  33. Conclusion on Aleph result • 2.3s disagreement between ELEP and Ezg: • Various checks proved result stability. • Conservative systematic error. • dominant part of detector systematic. • double counting: calorimeter syst/ jet angular bias. • Zg special topology can turn almost negligible error for W into the main systematic!! • Investigations to sign biases and correct them.

  34. Other LEP experiment results • This method was initiated by Aleph. • Presentation at April 2000 LEP workshop  other experiments were asked to look at their data.

  35. Other LEP experiment results (2) • UNOFFICIAL results presented at Lisbon (november 2000). • BEWARE:Ebeam

  36. Opal PRELIMINARY result

  37. Other LEP experiment results(3) • Disagreement seems to be confirmed by other experiments, at least in hadronic channel. • Measurements are all dominated by detector systematic • 3 Zg LEP meetings since Lisbon workshops. • Activity from mainly Opal and Delphi. Lack of manpower in L3. Very useful inputs from theorist (Jadach et al.).

  38. LEP Plans • Meeting next tuesday: • updates with Y2K result by Opal? Delphi? • following meeting with Jadach, comparisons on ISR systematic. • plans for future combination hoped for summer conf.

  39. Impact on W mass • Reminder: • If deviation is confirmed by other LEP exp., several possible origins: • Monte Carlo problem: could affect W mass. • wrong LEP energy:would affect W mass: very unlikely. • If deviation is not confirmed, one must hope apparatus effect, that does not affect W mass (it is likely, considering Zg special topology.) • ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS

More Related