NC Energy Estimators 2 Philip Rodrigues 27/03/2007.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Mark Dorman UCL/RAL Hough Methods In The CC Analysis Of The Far Detector Mark Dorman Inclusion of Hough variables into PAN NC/CC discriminating power Obtaining.

Advertisements

22 Feb 2008UCL Physics Meeting1 WW CSC update Adam, Erkcan, Jon, Peter.

Data/Monte Carlo disagreement for Rustem’s Signal Fluctuation variable in the Far Detector (Working Title) Philip Rodrigues Oxford MINOS Group Meeting.

FD Crosstalk or A disappointing lack of pretty colours Philip Rodrigues Oxford MINOS Meeting 20 May 2008.

CC Background Systematic 3 Philip Rodrigues Oxford Group Meeting 30/10/07.

NC Energy Estimators Philip Rodrigues. Issues Need to choose what true E to estimate. Options are: –showerEnergy –trueVisibleE –y*E_nu Need to choose.

Possible directions for NC sensitivity Philip Rodrigues April 2008 Minos collaboration meeting, Sussex.

CC background systematics or “Once more, this time with errors” Philip Rodrigues Oxford Group Meeting 6/11/07.

STAR Status of J/  Trigger Simulations for d+Au Running Trigger Board Meeting Dec5, 2002 MC & TU.

13/02/20071 Event selection methods & First look at new PCB test Manqi Ruan Support & Discussing: Roman Advisor: Z. ZHANG (LAL) & Y. GAO (Tsinghua))

GWDAW-8 (December 17-20, 2003, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA) Search for burst gravitational waves with TAMA data Masaki Ando Department of Physics, University.

1 N. Davidson E/p single hadron energy scale check with minimum bias events Jet Note 8 Meeting 15 th May 2007.

CC analysis progress This talk: –A first attempt at calculating CC energy sensitivity using the Far Mock data MC files with full reconstruction. –Quite.

Selection: i) Used “basic cuts” described in my NuBarPID talk (slide 3). 74.4% of CC events pass this cut. ii) Used David’s PID cut at -0.2 to remove NC.

1 previously, when I calculated event selection efficiencies, I defined efficiencies as the following: efficiency in electron channel = (total number of.

SpillServer and FD neutrino events As part of my CC analysis studies, I have been attempting to isolate beam neutrino candidates in the FD using both scanning.

1 First look at new MC files First look at reconstruction output from the newly- generated “mock-data” MC files. –These contain the following improvements:

Page 1 Calculating the Beam Position at the Ecal for DESY Run (Independent of Tracking) Hakan Yilmaz.

NuMI Offaxis Near Detector and Backgrounds Stanley Wojcicki Stanford University Cambridge Offaxis workshop January 12, 2004.

1 Downstream PID update - How cooling section affects TOF measurement Rikard Sandström PID phone conference

1 Calice Analysis Meeting 13/02/07David Ward Just a collection of thoughts to guide us in planning electron analysis In order to end up with a coherent.

Data-based background predictions using forward events Victor Pavlunin and David Stuart University of California Santa Barbara July 10, 2008.

CC ANALYSIS STUDIES Andy Blake Cambridge University Fermilab, September 2006.

Plot is the series of events in a story where the main conflict (problem) in the story is resolved. What is Plot?

Handling Data and Figures of Merit Data comes in different formats time Histograms Lists But…. Can contain the same information about quality What is meant.

1 Shower maximum detector (SMD) is a wire proportional counter – strip readout detector using gas amplification. SMD is used to provide a spatial resolution.

7/6/2011ECAL Studies1/7 ECAL Studies Jacopo Nardulli.

The Summery of the NEMO 3 meeting. The topic Discussed 1) Some problems in variation of the gain of the counters and resoulution of the counters (for.

Energy Flow and Jet Calibration Mark Hodgkinson Artemis Meeting 27 September 2007 Contains work by R.Duxfield,P.Hodgson, M.Hodgkinson,D.Tovey.

W  eν The W->eν analysis is a phi uniformity calibration, and only yields relative calibration constants. This means that all of the α’s in a given eta.

Energy Flow Technique and *where I am Lily Have been looking at the technique developed by Mark Hodgkinson, Rob Duxfield of Sheffield. Here is a summary.

 A -  B -  C -  D - Yes No Not sure.  A -  B -  C -  D - Yes No Not sure.

Aachen, 14/03/2007 Introduction 1 Introduction to the 2 nd jamboree and summary of the first.

1 Scan of DCA resolution - run 7 MinBias Production2 Issues Improvement for DCA resolution estimation : Dependence with η Dependence with particle Id.

Event-Specific Hadronic Event Reconstruction 1 Graham W. Wilson, University of Kansas.

Study of Standard Model Backgrounds for SUSY search with ATLAS detector Takayuki Sasaki, University of Tokyo.

© Imperial College LondonPage 1 Tracking & Ecal Positional/Angular Resolution Hakan Yilmaz.

1 A first look at the KEK tracker data with G4MICE Malcolm Ellis 2 nd December 2005.

N. Saoulidou, Fermilab, MINOS Collaboration Meeting N. Saoulidou, Fermilab, ND/CC Parallel Session, MINOS Collaboration Meeting R1.18.

MCMC reconstruction of the 2 HE cascade events Dmitry Chirkin, UW Madison.

Resolution and radiative corrections A first order estimate for pbar p  e + e - T. H. IPN Orsay 05/10/2011 GDR PH-QCD meeting on « The nucleon structure.

P. Vahle, Oxford Jan F/N Ratio and the Effect of Systematics on the 1e20 POT CC Analysis J. Thomas, P. Vahle University College London Feburary.

PID Detector Requirements for Emittance Measurement Chris Rogers, MICE PID Review, Thursday Oct 12.

Optimization of Analysis Cuts for Oscillation Parameters Andrew Culling, Cambridge University HEP Group.

1 D.Chakraborty – VLCW'06 – 2006/07/21 PFA reconstruction with directed tree clustering Dhiman Chakraborty for the NICADD/NIU software group Vancouver.

Beam Extrapolation Fit Peter Litchfield  An update on the method I described at the September meeting  Objective;  To fit all data, nc and cc combined,

A bin-free Extended Maximum Likelihood Fit + Feldman-Cousins error analysis Peter Litchfield  A bin free Extended Maximum Likelihood method of fitting.

Alternative Code to Calculate NMH Sensitivity J. Brunner 16/10/

Six modules Micromegas TPC beam test & Test bench 12/4/2012W.Wang_RD51 mini week1 D. Attié, P. Colas, M. Dixit, P. Hayman, W. Wang.

22 January 2009 David1 Look at dead material and fake MET in Jx samples mc08 10 TeV simulations, release J0 to J6 are tag s479_r586, ‘ideal geometry’

28/4/2006Chris Collins-Tooth tth, (h → bb) with EventViews Chris Collins-Tooth, Christian Shaw 03-May-2006.

October 2011 David Toback, Texas A&M University Research Topics Seminar1 David Toback Texas A&M University For the CDF Collaboration CIPANP, June 2012.

Update on my oscillation analysis Reconstructed Near detector data event Reconstructed Near detector MC event Truth Near detector MC event Truth Far detector.

MINOS Coll Meet. Oxford, Jan CC/NC Data Cross Checks Thomas Osiecki University of Texas at Austin.

P. Ochoa, September Using Muon Removed files to assess the purity of the nubar-PID selection Pedro Ochoa MINOS Collaboration Meeting September 2006.

Measuring Oscillation Parameters Four different Hadron Production models  Four predicted Far  CC spectrum.

Systematics in Hfitter. Reminder: profiling nuisance parameters Likelihood ratio is the most powerful discriminant between 2 hypotheses What if the hypotheses.

Testbeam analysis Lesya Shchutska. 2 beam telescope ECAL trigger  Prototype: short bars (3×7.35×114 mm 3 ), W absorber, 21 layer, 18 X 0  Readout: Signal.

Search for a 4 th generation t’ quark in p-p collision at ATLAS -Suyog Shrestha, Iowa State University.

Alternative Code to Calculate NMH Sensitivity J. Brunner 16/10/

Extrapolation Techniques  Four different techniques have been used to extrapolate near detector data to the far detector to predict the neutrino energy.

I'm concerned that the OS requirement for the signal is inefficient as the charge of the TeV scale leptons can be easily mis-assigned. As a result we do.

Noise results from SR1 combined SCT barrel tests Summary of some initial results Alan Barr, UCL Pepe Bernabeu, Valencia.

Precision Measurement of Muon Neutrino Disappearance with T2K Alex Himmel Duke University for the The T2K Collaboration 37 th International Conference.

First look at data/MC comparison for period 8 reference runs

Investigation on Part of Work Done by Electroweak Group

EMCal Recalibration Check

Problems with the Run4 Preliminary Phi->KK Analysis

tth, (h→bb) with EventViews

Quarkonium production, offline monitoring, alignment & calibration

Presentation transcript:

NC Energy Estimators 2 Philip Rodrigues 27/03/2007

Story so far… Look at peak and RMS of (E reco -E true )/E true –Choice of reco and true Whether to include true CC events –(Yes) Only ND so far

This week... Far detector too Whether to include E lepton in truth Performance as function of true E

Method (same as before) Hedge my bets: –Run with different E true –Run with/without CC bg –Run with different E reco 1.Plot (E reco -E true )/E true 2.Fit gaussian to peak 3.Scale E reco until fit peaks at 0

Including E lepton in truth Without E l : Misidentified true CC events bias scale With E l : True CC events peak at same place as NC (no bias) True CC peak more symmetrical and narrower Conclusion: always include true CC and E lepton from now on...

Near Best 3 reco/true pairs: RecoTrueCalib RMS deweightCCtrueVisibleE + E l deweightCCshowerE + E l deweightNCtrueVisibleE+E l 0.369

Near – performance vs E Top: position of peak Bottom: RMS times sqrt(E) deweightCC flatter, but deweightNC better resolution at high E

Far Best 3 reco/true pairs: RecoTrueCalib RMS deweightNCtrueVisibleE + E l deweightNCshowerE + E l deweightCCtrueVisibleE+E l 0.298

Far – performance vs E Now not much difference in flatness, but deweightNC better resolution at high E

Summary ‘Calibrating’ for all NC selected including true CC : –loses very little –potentially gains a lot –requires E lepton to be included in truth Not sure which estimator to recommend