Ponza 05 June 2008 Status report on analysis F. Ambrosino T. Capussela F. Perfetto Status...

Ponza 05 June 2008

Status report on analysis

F. Ambrosino T. Capussela F. Perfetto

Status report on analysisFrascati 29 September 2008

Outline Now Future Conclusions

Ponza 05 June 2008

Outline

Where we stand now:

Improved the selection procedure Tested the fit procedure Semplified the analysis Which are the future plans:

Understand the slope in the wrong pairing (w.p.) Select the approach in which to give the result Finally to publish!!!!

Frascati 29 September 2008

OLD approach:

7 and only 7 pnc with 21° < < 159° and E > 10 MeV > 18° Kin Fit with no mass constraint P(2) > 0.01 320 MeV < Erad < 400 MeV AFTER PHOTON’S PAIRINGKinematic Fit with and mass

constraints (on DATA M= 547.822

MeV/c2 )

NEW approach:

7 and only 7 pnc with 21° < < 159° and E > 10 MeV > 18° Kin Fit with mass constraint

(on DATA M= 547.874 MeV/c2 ) P(2) > 0.01 320 MeV < Erad < 400 MeV AFTER PHOTON’S PAIRINGKinematic Fit with mass constraint



Sample selection


Ponza 05 June 2008

Zgen in acceptance


After kinematic fit After P(2) > 0.01

After EVCL

After > 18°

After E > 10 MeV

After 320 MeV < Erad < 400 MeV


Ponza 05 June 2008

Effect on purity and efficiency new approach


> 18°

> 15°

> 12°

> 9° > 6°

PUR % 82.2 82.1 81.9 81.7 81.4

% 12.4 8.2 6.8 4.9 4.7

PUR % 89.4 89.3 89.2 89 88.9

% 15.8 13.1 11.1 9.1 8.9

PUR % 95.1 95.0 94.9 94.8 94.7

% 22 19.2 16.8 14.6 13.6

PUR % 97.1 97.0 96.9 96.9 96.8

% 28 26 23 20.4 19

PUR % 99 98.97 98.95 98.88 98.8

% 27 21.4 20.7 18 16.6

Low

Med I

Med II

Med III

High


Ponza 05 June 2008

Effect on purity and efficiency new approach


> 18°

> 15°

> 12°

> 9° > 6°

PUR % 82.2 82.1 81.9 81.7 81.4

% 12.4 8.2 6.8 4.9 4.7

PUR % 89.4 89.3 89.2 89 88.9

% 15.8 13.1 11.1 9.1 8.9

PUR % 95.1 95.0 94.9 94.8 94.7

% 22 19.2 16.8 14.6 13.6

PUR % 97.1 97.0 96.9 96.9 96.8

% 28 26 23 20.4 19

PUR % 99 98.97 98.95 98.88 98.8

% 27 21.4 20.7 18 16.6

Low

Med I

Med II

Med III

High


Ponza 05 June 2008

Results old approach


RangeLow

· 103Medium I

· 103Medium II

· 103Medium III

· 103High

· 103

(0, 1) 30 ± 2 31 ± 2 31 ± 3 25 ± 3 26 ± 4

(0, 0.8) 26 ± 2 28 ± 2 28 ± 3 22 ± 4 22 ± 5

(0, 0.7) 26 ± 3 28 ± 3 27 ± 4 21 ± 4 23 ± 5

(0, 0.6) 30 ± 4 31 ± 4 31 ± 4 24 ± 5 20 ± 6

RangeLow

· 103Medium I

· 103Medium II

· 103Medium III

· 103High

· 103

(0, 1) 31± 2

(0, 0.8) 30 ± 3

(0, 0.7) 30 ± 2 29 ± 3 29 ± 3 25 ± 4 - 23 ± 5

(0, 0.6) -31 ± 4


Ponza 05 June 2008

Fit procedure

ni log i i

We obtain an extimate by minimizingThe fit is done using a binned likelihood approach

Where:

ni = recostructed eventsi = for each MC event (according pure phase space): Evaluate its ztrue and its zrec (if any!) Enter an histogram with the value of zrec

Weight the entry with 1 + 2 ztrue Weight the event with the fraction of combinatorial background, for the signal (bkg) if it has correct (wrong) pairing



Ponza 05 June 2008

Test on fit procedure new approach MediumII

range

0 - 1 43 % 64.5 % 78 % 85 % 59 % 59 % 53 %

0 - 0.9 74.5 % 83.5 % 90 % 93 % 76 % 70 % 56 %

0 – 0.8 73 % 80 % 81.5 % 86.5 % 62.2 % 52 % 38 %

0 – 0.7 62 % 69 % 71 % 80 % 51 % 49 % 33 %

0 – 0.6 32 % 66 % 72 % 78 % 68 % 63 % 45 %


Ponza 05 June 2008

Test on fit procedure

Hit or Miss fit procedure


Ponza 05 June 2008

Three new samples


LOWPur 90.02% Eff 30.48 %9.5 %Res 0.1421

MEDIUMPur 95.6% Eff 20.92 %13.11 %Res 0.1234

HIGHPur 97.42% Eff 16 %9 %Res 0.1177


Ponza 05 June 2008

Wrong Pairing fit old vs. new approach

MEDIUM MEDIUM

HIGH HIGH

Old approach New approach

LOW



LOW


Ponza 05 June 2008

Results old vs. new approach


91 % 43 % 66 %

(0, 0.6) 30 ± 4 29 ± 5 24 ± 4

83 % 28 % 52 %

Range

PLow

· 103Medium

· 103HIGH

· 103

(0, 1) 27 ± 2 26 ± 2 22 ± 3

96 % 62 % 73 %

(0, 0.7) 28 ± 3 25 ± 4 22 ± 4

8 % 3 % 0.1 %

(0, 0.6) 46 ± 2 53 ± 3 54 ± 4

2 % 2 % 3 %

RangeLow

· 103Medium

· 103HIGH

· 103

(0, 1) 41 ± 3 46 ± 2 44 ± 3

6 % 2 % 0.1 %

(0, 0.7) 46 ± 4 46 ± 3 47 ± 4


Ponza 05 June 2008

Residuals old vs. new approach

HIGH OLD approach

HIGH NEW approach

MEDIUM NEW approach

MEDIUM OLD approach

LOW NEW approach

LOW NEW approach


Ponza 05 June 2008

Future plans & conclusions


In order to understand the presence of the slope in the wrong pairing fit : Introduce in the kinematic fit procedure the √s run by run

Use the MC samples with different values to fit the w.p.

If do you have other ideas?... They are very welcomes.

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions

Ponza 05 June 2008

Zgen in acceptance



Ponza 05 June 2008

Efficienza con i diversi tagli in sample Medium II



Ponza 05 June 2008


Ponza 05 June 2008

Da confrontare con i risultati dalla procedura di fit

Medium II

· 103

37 ± 2

34 ± 3

36 ± 3

42 ± 4

Medium II

· 103

32 ± 2

28 ± 3

27 ± 3

38 ± 3

Range

(0, 1)

(0, 0.8)

(0, 0.7)

(0, 0.6)

Ripesando per il BKG

Nonripesando per il BKG


Status report on analysisPonza 05 June 2008

Fitting the combinatorial background new approach

On DATA:

Wrong pair fraction (MC) = 10.6 %Wrong pair fraction (DATA) = (12.93 ± 0.31) %



Wrong pair fraction (MC) = 1.0 %Wrong pair fraction (DATA) = ???????????? %

Wrong pair fraction (MC) = 17.8 % Wrong pair fraction (DATA) = (19.67 ± 0.30) %


Results Old – New

RangeLow

· 103Medium I

· 103Medium II

· 103Medium III

· 103High

· 103

(0, 1) 30 ± 2 31 ± 2 31 ± 3 25 ± 3 26 ± 4

(0, 0.8) 26 ± 2 28 ± 2 28 ± 3 22 ± 4 22 ± 5

(0, 0.7) 26 ± 3 28 ± 3 27 ± 4 21 ± 4 23 ± 5

(0, 0.6) 30 ± 4 31 ± 4 31 ± 4 24 ± 5 20 ± 6

RangeLow

· 103Medium I

· 103Medium II

· 103Medium III

· 103High

· 103

(0, 1) 36 ± 2 37 ± 2 37 ± 2 35 ± 3

(0, 0.8) 36 ± 2 37 ± 2 34 ± 3 32 ± 3

(0, 0.7) 38 ± 2 40 ± 3 36 ± 3 33 ± 3

(0, 0.6) 44 ± 3 48 ± 4 42 ± 4 37 ± 4



Ponza 05 June 2008

Residui old – new approach


HIGH OLD approach

HIGH NEW approach

MEDIUM NEW approach

MEDIUM OLD approach


Ponza 05 June 2008

Residui old – new approach


LOW NEW approach

LOW OLD approach


Ponza 05 June 2008

Test con nuovo taglio in P(2)


Taglio finora utilizzatoP(2) > 0.012 < 25

Taglio nuovoP(2) > 0.12 < 19

Cosa succede al fondo……


Ponza 05 June 2008

Test con nuovo taglio in P(2) new approach


HIGH

MEDIUM MEDIUM


Ponza 05 June 2008

Test con nuovo taglio in P(2) new approach


LOWLOW

…. Purtroppo non è cambiato niente!!!!!

E1

E2

E


Status report on analysisPonza =5 June 2008

Systematic on Resolution

A further check can be done comparing the energies of the two photons in the pion rest frame as function of pion energy

Vs.


Statu report on analysisPonza 05 June 2008

Systematic on Resolution

Stefano ha chiesto di •confrontare il valor medio e la sigma del fit gaussiano,•graficare le diverse slices per il wrong e right pairing (versione cartacea) •Mettere in tabella Ncore e Ntail



Ponza 05 June 2008

valor medi campioni low e High new approach


Low

MCDATA

MCDATA

High


Ponza 05 June 2008

sigma campioni low e High new approach


MCDATA

MCDATA

Low High La discrepanza potrebbe essere dovuta al fatto che io ho fatto un fit con 3gaus e ho plottato solo la di core, avrei dovuto tenere conto delle altre opportunamentepesate per Ni


Ponza 05 June 2008

Tabella Ncore Ntails


MC

Ncore Ntails

361 146

1494 1064

1458 1554

3095 1806

3749 1972

3991 2078

4129 2062

3852 1690

2920 1303

744 393

DATA

Ncore Ntails

86 42

399 264

558 532

828 517

930 571

1055 587

1063 549

932 476

761 315

197 128

195 133

Campione MEDIUM


Ponza 05 June 2008

Plot vari


Ho solo la copia cartacea dei vari check effettuati…


Ponza 05 June 2008

SPARE SLIDES



Sample selection

OLD approach:


constraints (on DATA M= 547.822

MeV/c2 )

NEW approach:





Purity Old – New

Using the same cuts on min and

Pur 75.4%

Pur 84.5%

Pur 92%

Pur 94.8%

Pur 97.6%

Pur 82.2%

Pur 99%

Pur 97.1%

Pur 95.1%

Pur 89.4%

Low purity

Medium I purity

Medium II purity

Medium III purity

High purity



Resolution Old – New


RMS = 0.2003

RMS = 0.1663

RMS = 0.1287

RMS = 0.2003

RMS = 0.1864

RMS = 0.080

RMS = 0.097

RMS = 0.1141

RMS = 0.1465

Low purity

Medium I purity

Medium II purity

Medium III purity

High purity

RMS = 0.1099

RMS = 0.0871



Resolution (Medium II sample )



Efficiency Old – New


= 22.02 %

= 13.64 %

= 9.24 %

= 4.34%

= 30.15 %

6.60%

= 11.76%

= 16.24%

= 23.69 %

Low purity

Medium I purity

Medium II purity

Medium III purity

High purity



Slope efficiency Old – New

The slope in the efficiency shapes

8%

14%

21%

25%

26%

Low purity

Medium I purity

Medium II purity

Medium III purity

High purity

12.4%

15.8%

21.9%

27.6%

26.7%



Efficiency (Medium II sample)




Fitting the combinatorial background (Old)

On DATA:








Fitting the combinatorial background (New)

On DATA:




Wrong pair fraction (MC) = 1.0 %Wrong pair fraction (DATA) = ???????????? %




Fit procedure

ni log i i

We obtain an extimate by minimizingThe fit is done using a binned likelihood approach

Where:

ni = recostructed eventsi = for each MC event (according pure phase space): Evaluate its ztrue and its zrec (if any!) Enter an histogram with the value of zrec

Weight the entry with 1 + 2 ztrue Weight the event with the fraction of combinatorial background, for the signal (bkg) if it has correct (wrong) pairing



The systematic check

This procedure relies heavily on MC.

The crucial checks for the analysis can be summarizedin three main questions:

I. Is MC correctly describing efficiencies ?II. Is MC correctly describing resolutions ?III. Is MC correctly estimating the “background” ?



Efficiency (I)

Correction to the photon efficiency is applied weighting the Montecarloevents for the Data/MC photon efficiency ratio ≈ 1 exp(E/8.1)



Efficiency (I) (Medium II sample)

Correction to the photon efficiency is applied weighting the Montecarloevents for the Data/MC photon efficiency ratio ≈ 1 exp(E/8.1)



Efficiency (II)

Further check is to look at the relative ratio between the different samples:

N2/N1 data = 0.7888 ± 0.0010

N3/N1 data = 0.5466 ± 0.0008

N4/N1 data = 0.3988 ± 0.0006

N5/N1 data = 0.2273 ± 0.0004

N2/N1 mc = 0.7859 ±0.0007

N3/N1 mc = 0.5382 ±0.0006

N4/N1 mc = 0.3894 ±0.0005

N5/N1 mc. = 0.2188 ±0.0003



Resolution (I)


Status reort on analysisPonza 05 June 2008

Resolution (II)

The center of Dalitz plot correspond to 3 pions with the same energy (Ei = M/3 = 182.4 MeV). A good check of the MC performance in evaluating the energy resolution of 0 comes from the distribution of E0 Ei for z = 0

E1

E2

E


Status report on analysisPonza =5 June 2008

Resolution (III)


Vs.


Statu report on analysisPonza 05 June 2008

Resolution (IV)

A data MC discrepancy at level of 12 % is observed.Thus we fit filling a histo with: z’rec = zgen + (zrec zgen ).




Background Old

Background composition, Medium II purity sample



Background Old



Background New

Background composition, Medium II purity sample



Background New


Linearity

Check linearity of DATA/MCreco using for MC pure phase space…



Results Old – New

RangeLow

· 103Medium I

· 103Medium II

· 103Medium III

· 103High

· 103

(0, 1) 30 ± 2 31 ± 2 31 ± 3 25 ± 3 26 ± 4

(0, 0.8) 26 ± 2 28 ± 2 28 ± 3 22 ± 4 22 ± 5

(0, 0.7) 26 ± 3 28 ± 3 27 ± 4 21 ± 4 23 ± 5

(0, 0.6) 30 ± 4 31 ± 4 31 ± 4 24 ± 5 20 ± 6

RangeLow

· 103Medium I

· 103Medium II

· 103Medium III

· 103High

· 103

(0, 1) 36 ± 2 37 ± 2 37 ± 2 35 ± 3

(0, 0.8) 36 ± 2 37 ± 2 34 ± 3 32 ± 3

(0, 0.7) 38 ± 2 40 ± 3 36 ± 3 33 ± 3

(0, 0.6) 44 ± 3 48 ± 4 42 ± 4 37 ± 4



Systematic uncertainties Old - New

EffectLow

· 103Medium I

· 103Medium II

· 103Medium III

· 103High

· 103

Res 9 6 4 3 3

Low E 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.4

Bkg 0. 0. 0. 1 1 +1

M 1 1 2 2 5

Range 4 3 4 4 3 +3

Purity 2 +5 +7 1 + 6 7 5 + 2

Tot 10 + 5 7 + 7 6 + 6 9 9 + 4

EffectLow

· 103Medium I

· 103Medium II

· 103Medium III

· 103

Res - 4 - 4 - 2 - 2

Low E negligible negligible negligible negligible

Bkg 3. -1 +3 -3 2

M 1 +1 0 0 1 +1

Range -6 + 2 8 +3 6 +2 -4 + 1

Purity -2 +5 +7 4 + 3 7

Tot 8 + 6 9 + 8 8 + 4 9 + 1



Data / Fit distribution New



Data / Fit distribution Old


Status report of analysisPonza 05 June 2008

Results No bkg - bkg

RangeLow

· 103Medium I

· 103Medium II

· 103Medium III

· 103

(0, 1) 33 ± 2 33 ± 2 32 ± 2 29 ± 3

(0, 0.8) 32 ± 2 30 ± 2 28 ± 3 25 ± 3

(0, 0.7) 32 ± 2 31 ± 3 27 ± 3 24 ± 3

(0, 0.6) 36 ± 4 24 ± 3 38 ± 3 25 ± 4

RangeLow

· 103Medium I

· 103Medium II

· 103Medium III

· 103

(0, 1) 36 ± 2 37 ± 2 37 ± 2 35 ± 3

(0, 0.8) 36 ± 2 37 ± 2 34 ± 3 32 ± 3

(0, 0.7) 38 ± 2 40 ± 3 36 ± 3 33 ± 3

(0, 0.6) 44 ± 3 48 ± 4 42 ± 4 37 ± 4



Systematic uncertainties No bkg - bkg

EffectLow

· 103Medium I

· 103Medium II

· 103Medium III

· 103

Res

Low E

Bkg

M

Range -4 2 +7 11 -5

Purity +8 -1 +7 5 + 3 8

Tot 4 + 8 2 + 10 12 + 3 9

EffectLow

· 103Medium I

· 103Medium II

· 103Medium III

· 103

Res - 4 - 4 - 2 - 2

Low E negligible negligible negligible negligible

Bkg 3. -1 +3 -3 2

M 1 +1 0 0 1 +1

Range -6 + 2 8 +3 6 +2 -4 + 1

Purity -2 +5 +7 4 + 3 7

Tot 8 + 6 9 + 8 8 + 4 9 + 1



Data / Fit distribution




Summary

Using the Old approach, we have published this preliminary results:

This result is compatible with the published Crystal Ball result: = 0.031 ± 0.004

And the calculations from the +- analysis using only the - rescattering in the final state.

= 0.027 ± 0.004stat ± 0.006 syst

= 0.038 ± 0.003stat +0.012

-0.008 syst

Using the New approach we have:

0.027< < 0.036

Introduction Theoretical tools Results Conclusions


Conclusions


Ponza 05 June 2008

Spare



Ponza 05 June 2008

Data / Fit ALL



Ponza 05 June 2008

Background Old - New


Status of analysis

F. Ambrosino T. Capussela F. Perfetto

Status of analysisPonza 05 June 2008

Status of analysis

Conclusions: 12 March 2008

We have to resolve the Data MC discrepancy on min

2

We are ready to fit and to evaluate the systematical errors in the NEW approach.

Ponza 05 June 2008

Status of analysis

min : Data-MC comparison

Ponza 05 June 2008

Status of analysis

min

m0

j

m ioj

j2

m i

0j M

0

m0

j

i1

3

2

Recoil is the most energetic cluster.In order to match every couple of photon to the right 0 we build a 2-like variable for each of the 15 combinations:

With:

is the invariant mass of i0 for j-th combination

= 134.98 MeV

is obtained as function of photon energies

M 0

Ponza 05 June 2008

Status of decayFrascati 14 May 2008

min : Data-MC comparison


Status of analysis

Energy resolution

EEp1 1 e

p2

E p3

Ep4

E

MM

1

2

E1

E1

E2

E2

We have corrected the for the observed Data-MC discrepancy

Ponza 05 June 2008

Status of analysis

Sample selection

OLD approach:


constraints (on DATA M=547.822

MeV/c2 )

NEW approach:



Ponza 05 June 2008

Status of analysis

OLD – NEW results

RangeLow

· 103Medium I

· 103Medium II

· 103Medium III

· 103High

· 103

(0, 1) 30 ± 2 31 ± 2 31 ± 3 25 ± 3 26 ± 4

(0, 0.8) 26 ± 2 28 ± 2 28 ± 3 22 ± 4 22 ± 5

(0, 0.7) 26 ± 3 28 ± 3 27 ± 4 21 ± 4 23 ± 5

(0, 0.6) 30 ± 4 31 ± 4 31 ± 4 24 ± 5 20 ± 6

RangeLow

· 103Medium I

· 103Medium II

· 103Medium III

· 103High

· 103

(0, 1) 36 ± 2 37 ± 2 37 ± 2 35 ± 3

(0, 0.8) 36 ± 2 37 ± 2 34 ± 3 32 ± 3

(0, 0.7) 38 ± 2 40 ± 3 36 ± 3 33 ± 3

(0, 0.6) 44 ± 3 48 ± 4 42 ± 4 37 ± 4

Ponza 05 June 2008


Dalitz plot analysis of with the KLOE experiment

OLD – NEW systematic uncertainties

EffectLow

· 103Medium I

· 103Medium II

· 103Medium III

· 103High

· 103

Res 9 6 4 3 3

Low E 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.4

Bkg 0. 0. 0. 1 1 +1

M 1 1 2 2 5

Range 4 3 4 4 3 +3

Purity 2 +5 +7 1 + 6 7 5 + 2

Tot 10 + 5 7 + 7 6 + 6 9 9 + 4

EffectLow

· 103Medium I

· 103Medium II

· 103Medium III

· 103

Res ???? ???? + 5 ?????

Low E 0.2 0.1 .2 0.4

Bkg 3. -1 +3 -3 2

M 1 +1 0 0 1 +1

Range -6 + 2 8 +3 6 +2 -4 + 1

Purity -2 +5 +7 4 + 3 7

Tot 6 + 6 8 + 8 8 + 6 8 +1Ponza 05 June 2008

Status of analysis

OLD – NEW result

In the OLD approach we give the final result for the slope parameter in corrispondence of the sample with 92% of purity (Medium II):

= 0.027 ± 0.004stat ± 0.006 syst

In the NEW approach we give the final result for the slope parameter in corrispondence of the sample with 95% of purity (MediumII):

= 0.036 ± 0.003stat - 0.008/+0.006 syst

Ponza 05 June 2008

Status of analysis

OLD - NEW


Pur 75.4%

Pur 84.5%

Pur 92%

Pur 94.8%

Pur 97.6%

Pur 82.2%

Pur 99%

Pur 97.1%

Pur 95.1%

Pur 89.4%

Low purity

Medium I purity

Medium II purity

Medium III purity

High purity

Ponza 05 June 2008

Status of analysis

OLD - NEW

The slope in the efficiency shapes

8%

14%

21%

25%

26%

Low purity

Medium I purity

Medium II purity

Medium III purity

High purity

12.4%

15.8%

21.9%

27.6%

26.7%

Ponza 05 June 2008

Status of analysis

OLD - NEW

RMS = 0.1169

RMS = 0.1632

Ponza 05 June 2008

Status of decay

: Data-MC comparison

Ponza 05 June 2008

Date post:	14-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kylan-fenney
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Ponza 05 June 2008 Status report on analysis F. Ambrosino T. Capussela F. Perfetto Status...

Documents