1 / 28

Silvia Goy L ó pez, Mauro Raggi 29 th June 2006

Systematic Studies for K ±  ±  0 . Silvia Goy L ó pez, Mauro Raggi 29 th June 2006. Last meeting:Table for suggested systematics 0<T<80 MeV. Central value for 0<T<80 MeV, Emin=5GeV, after L1 eff correction:. DE=(3.30 ± 0.34stat)% INT= ( -2.37 ± 0.79stat)%. TO DO.

tauret
Download Presentation

Silvia Goy L ó pez, Mauro Raggi 29 th June 2006

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. Systematic Studies for K±±0 Silvia Goy López, Mauro Raggi 29th June 2006

  2. Last meeting:Table for suggested systematics 0<T<80 MeV Central value for 0<T<80 MeV, Emin=5GeV, after L1 eff correction: DE=(3.30 ± 0.34stat)% INT= (-2.37 ± 0.79stat)%

  3. TO DO • Could it be that some ‘systematic’ effects could be due to statistical fluctuations? • Suggested by Mauro’s studies on MC and SS0 for Emin • Silvia must check on SS0 • Are we ‘forgetting’ any possible source of systematic errors?

  4. DONE • Silvia checks on SS0 for Emin and other effects • New effects checked: • High T* cut, related to L2 efficiency • Resolution/ misstagging effects • Computation of uncorrelated errors

  5. Results 3 PAR fit SS123 Emin> 5GeV, 0.2<W<0.9, after trigger correction. Previous meeting New 0<T<80 MeV 0<T<80 MeV Silvia was not using Mauro’s trigger correction. Mauro was using ‘old’ fitting routine. AverDE=3.35, Aver INT= 2.67, Diff DE= 0.02, Diff INT=0.19

  6. Results High correlation between INT and DE ~-93%

  7. Emin from last meeting Reference point 5 GeV, after teff correction For syst take full difference between 5 GeV and 7 GeV, disagreement within uncorrelated errors Frac DE Eg min (GeV) Frac INT Eg min (GeV)

  8. Frac DE Eg min (GeV) Frac INT Eg min (GeV) Emin: No Syst • When looking at SS0 no effect found. Corroborates Mauro’s results. SS0 SS0 SS123

  9. Emin: No Syst SS123 All points within first two ellipses: Prob ellipse 1: 0.393 Prob ellipse 2: 0.865

  10. Frac DE Frac DE EOVP EOVP Frac INT Frac INT EOVP EOVP Eovp: No Syst SS123 SS0

  11. Frac DE Sigmas Kaon Mass Frac INT Sigmas Kaon Mass Kaon mass: No Syst SS123 SS0

  12. Cog: No Syst SS123 SS0 Frac DE Cog (cm) Frac INT Cog (cm)

  13. Frac DE Delta zvn-zvc (cm) Frac INT Delta z: No Syst SS123 SS0 Delta zvn-zvc (cm)

  14. Misstag: Last meeting Reference point at 400 cm Take for systematic evaluation point at 750 cm Frac DE zvc-zvnsec (cm) Frac INT zvc-zvnsec (cm)

  15. Misstag: SS0 If I was using same method of calculating the effect in SS0 I would get comparable results wrt SS123 SS0 Frac DE zvc-zvnsec (cm) Frac INT zvc-zvnsec (cm)

  16. Misstag: No Syst SS123 All points within first ellipse! Prob ellipse 1: 0.393 Prob ellipse 2: 0.865

  17. Ppi: No syst SS123 SS0 Frac DE Ppi (GeV) Frac INT Ppi (GeV)

  18. T* upper cut: L2 efficiency MBOX cut in mfake at 475 MeV equivalent to a cut on T*<90 MeV Resolution effects can show near the cut Try varying upper cut on T* to check effect Big effect changing from 80 MeV to 75 MeV Diff DE=0.33 Diff INT=1.03 Effect is much reduced going from 75 MeV to 70 MeV, as expected if due to edge effect of trigger cut Proposal: assign half of the difference as systematic uncertainty

  19. New table for suggested systematics 0<T<80 MeV

  20. Results for fractions wrt IB • Averaging Mauro’s and Silvia’s result and setting a systematic error due to difference • For 0<T*<80 MeV • Frac DE=(3.35±0.35stat ±0.18syst)% • Frac INT=(-2.67±0.81stat ±0.55syst)%

  21. Results with 2 PAR fit • Useful in order to compare with other experiments • Much smaller systematic errors • Results have been shown on 19/05/06

  22. Systematics 2 PAR fit: Emin No dependency on Emin seen when fitting to 2 PAR 55<T<80 MeV 0<T<80 MeV Teff corr Raw Teff corr Raw Frac DE Frac DE Eg min (GeV) Eg min (GeV)

  23. Systematics 2 PAR fit: Kaon mass No dependency for 55<T<80 MeV. For T<80 MeV tail of 3pin coming in 55<T<80 MeV 0<T<80 MeV Frac DE Frac DE Number sigmas Number of sigmas

  24. Systematics 2 PAR fit: Misstag No dependency from abs(zvc-zvnsec) > 400 cm 55<T<80 MeV 0<T<80 MeV Frac DE Frac DE Zvc-zvnsec (cm) Zvc-zvnsec (cm)

  25. Systematics 2 PAR fit: Pp 55<T<80 MeV 0<T<80 MeV Frac DE Frac DE P (GeV) P (GeV)

  26. Results 2 PAR fit Emin> 5GeV, 0.2<W<0.9 55<T<80 MeV 0<T<80 MeV NEW!!! • Good agreement found between Mauro-Silvia • Also good agreement between values in 55<T<80 MeV and extrapolation from 0<T<80 MeV

  27. T* upper cut: L2 efficiency Big effect changing from 80 MeV to 75 MeV Diff DE=0.08 Proposal: assign half of the difference as systematic uncertainty

  28. Results Frac DE wrt IB for INT=0 • Averaging results for 0<T*<80 MeV Frac DE(INT=0)=(2.29±0.13stat±0.04syst)% • Extrapolating to 55<T<90 MeV • Frac DE(INT=0)=(0.85±0.048stat±0.015syst)%

More Related