Ponza 05 June 2008 Status report on       analysis F. Ambrosino T. Capussela F. Perfetto Status report on    analysis Frascati 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 ° 10 MeV  > 18 ° Kin Fit with no mass constraint P(  2) > MeV < E  rad < 400 MeV AFTER PHOTON’S PAIRING Kinematic Fit with  and    mass constraints (on DATA M  = MeV/c 2 ) NEW approach : 7 and only 7 pnc with 21 ° 10 MeV  > 18 ° Kin Fit with  mass constraint ( on DATA M  = MeV/c2 ) P(  2) > MeV < E  rad < 400 MeV AFTER PHOTON’S PAIRING Kinematic Fit with    mass constraint Frascati 29 September 2008 Outline Now Future Conclusions Sample selection

Outline Now Future Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Z gen in acceptance Frascati 29 September 2008 After kinematic fit After P(  2) > 0.01 After EVCL After  > 18 ° After E  > 10 MeV After 320 MeV < E  rad < 400 MeV

Outline Now Future Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Effect on purity and efficiency new approach Frascati 29 September 2008  > 18 °  > 15 °  > 12 °  > 9 °  > 6 ° PUR %  % PUR %  % PUR %  % PUR %  % PUR %  % Low Med I Med II Med III High

Outline Now Future Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Effect on purity and efficiency new approach Frascati 29 September 2008  > 18 °  > 15 °  > 12 °  > 9 °  > 6 ° PUR %  % PUR %  % PUR %  % PUR %  % PUR %  % Low Med I Med II Med III High

Outline Now Future Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Results old approach Frascati 29 September 2008 Range Low · 10  3 Medium I · 10  3 Medium II · 10  3 Medium III · 10  3 High · 10  3 (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  24 ± 5  20 ± 6 Range Low · 10  3 Medium I · 10  3 Medium II · 10  3 Medium III · 10  3 High · 10  3 (0, 1)  31± 2 (0, 0.8)  30 ± 3 (0, 0.7)  30 ± 2  29 ± 3  25 ± ± 5 (0, 0.6)-31 ± 4

Outline Now Future Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Fit procedure We obtain an extimate by minimizing The fit is done using a binned likelihood approach Where: n i = recostructed events i = for each MC event (according pure phase space): Evaluate its z true and its z rec (if any!) Enter an histogram with the value of z rec Weight the entry with  z true Weight the event with the fraction of combinatorial background, for the signal (bkg) if it has correct (wrong) pairing Frascati 29 September 2008

Outline Now Future Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Test on fit procedure new approach MediumII range  %64.5 %78 %85 %59 % 53 % %83.5 %90 %93 %76 %70 %56 % 0 – %80 %81.5 %86.5 %62.2 %52 %38 % 0 – %69 %71 %80 %51 %49 %33 % 0 – %66 %72 %78 %68 %63 %45 %

Outline Now Future Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Test on fit procedure Hit or Miss fit procedure

Outline Now Future Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Three new samples Frascati 29 September 2008 LOW Pur  90.02% Eff  %  9.5 % Res  MEDIUM Pur  95.6% Eff  %  % Res  HIGH Pur  97.42% Eff  16 %  9 % Res 

Outline Now Future Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Wrong Pairing fit old vs. new approach MEDIUM HIGH Old approach New approach LOW Old approach New approach Old approach New approach LOW

Outline Now Future Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Results old vs. new approach Frascati 29 September %43 %66 % (0, 0.6)  30 ± 4  29 ± 5  24 ± 4 83 %28 %52 % Range P  Low · 10  3 Medium · 10  3 HIGH · 10  3 (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 % 3 % Range Low · 10  3 Medium · 10  3 HIGH · 10  3 (0, 1)  41 ± 3  46 ± 2  44 ± 3 6 % 2 %0.1 % (0, 0.7)  46 ± 4  46 ± 3  47 ± 4

Outline Now Future Conclusions 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

Outline Now Future Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Future plans & conclusions Frascati 29 September 2008 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 Z gen in acceptance Frascati 29 September 2008

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Efficienza con i diversi tagli in  sample Medium II Frascati 29 September 2008

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Da confrontare con i risultati dalla procedura di fit Medium II · 10  3  37 ± 2  34 ± 3  36 ± 3  42 ± 4 Medium II · 10  3  32 ± 2  28 ± 3  27 ± 3  38 ± 3 Range (0, 1) (0, 0.8) (0, 0.7) (0, 0.6) Ripesando per il BKG Non ripesando per il BKG

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Status report on    analysis Ponza 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) = 4.9 % Wrong pair fraction (DATA) = (7.52 ± 0.37) % Wrong pair fraction (MC) = 2.9 % Wrong pair fraction (DATA) = (5.71 ± 0.42) % Wrong pair fraction (MC) = 1.0 % Wrong pair fraction (DATA) = ???????????? % Wrong pair fraction (MC) = 17.8 % Wrong pair fraction (DATA) = (19.67 ± 0.30) %

Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Results Old – New Range Low · 10  3 Medium I · 10  3 Medium II · 10  3 Medium III · 10  3 High · 10  3 (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  24 ± 5  20 ± 6 Range Low · 10  3 Medium I · 10  3 Medium II · 10  3 Medium III · 10  3 High · 10  3 (0, 1)  36 ± 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 Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions

Ponza 05 June 2008 Residui old – new approach Status report on    analysis HIGH OLD approach HIGH NEW approach MEDIUM NEW approach MEDIUM OLD approach

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Residui old – new approach Status report on    analysis LOW NEW approach LOW OLD approach

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Test con nuovo taglio in P(  2) Status report on    analysis Taglio finora utilizzato P(  2) > 0.01  2 < 25 Taglio nuovo P(  2) > 0.1  2 < 19 Cosa succede al fondo……

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Test con nuovo taglio in P(  2) new approach Status report on    analysis HIGH MEDIUM

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Test con nuovo taglio in P(  2) new approach Status report on    analysis LOW …. Purtroppo non è cambiato niente!!!!!

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Status report on    analysis Ponza =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.

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Statu report on    analysis Ponza 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 A further check can be done comparing the energies of the two photons in the pion rest frame as function of pion energy

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 valor medi campioni low e High new approach Status report on    analysis Low MC DATA MC DATA High

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 sigma campioni low e High new approach Status report on    analysis MC DATA MC DATA LowHigh 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  opportunamente pesate per N i

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Tabella N core N tails Status report on    analysis MC N core N tails DATA N core N tails Campione MEDIUM

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Plot vari Status report on    analysis Ho solo la copia cartacea dei vari check effettuati…

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 SPARE SLIDES Status report on    analysis

Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Sample selection OLD approach : 7 and only 7 pnc with 21 ° 10 MeV  > 18 ° Kin Fit with no mass constraint P(  2) > MeV < E  rad < 400 MeV AFTER PHOTON’S PAIRING Kinematic Fit with  and    mass constraints (on DATA M  = MeV/c 2 ) NEW approach : 7 and only 7 pnc with 21 ° 10 MeV  > 18 ° Kin Fit with  mass constraint ( on DATA M  = MeV/c2 ) P(  2) > MeV < E  rad < 400 MeV AFTER PHOTON’S PAIRING Kinematic Fit with    mass constraint Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions

Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 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 Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions

Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Resolution Old – New Using the same cuts on  min and  RMS = RMS = RMS = RMS = RMS = RMS = RMS = RMS = RMS = Low purity Medium I purity Medium II purity Medium III purity High purity RMS = RMS = Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions

Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Resolution (Medium II sample ) Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions

Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Efficiency Old – New Using the same cuts on  min and    = %  = %  = 9.24 %  = 4.34%  = %  6.60%  = 11.76%  = 16.24%  = % Low purity Medium I purity Medium II purity Medium III purity High purity Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions

Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 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% Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions

Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Efficiency (Medium II sample) Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions

Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Fitting the combinatorial background (Old) On DATA: Wrong pair fraction (MC) = 15.5 % Wrong pair fraction (DATA) = (16.7 ± 0.28) % Wrong pair fraction (MC) = 7.9 % Wrong pair fraction (DATA) = (8.98 ± 0.37) % Wrong pair fraction (MC) = 5.2 % Wrong pair fraction (DATA) = (5.2 ± 0.45) % Wrong pair fraction (MC) = 2.4 % Wrong pair fraction (DATA) = (3.47 ± 1.00) % Wrong pair fraction (MC) = 24.6 % Wrong pair fraction (DATA) = (26.45 ± 0.26) %

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Fitting the combinatorial background (New) On DATA: Wrong pair fraction (MC) = 10.6 % Wrong pair fraction (DATA) = (12.86 ± 1.14) % Wrong pair fraction (MC) = 4.9 % Wrong pair fraction (DATA) = (7.21 ± 1.37) % Wrong pair fraction (MC) = 2.9 % Wrong pair fraction (DATA) = (5.09 ± 1.69) % Wrong pair fraction (MC) = 1.0 % Wrong pair fraction (DATA) = ???????????? % Wrong pair fraction (MC) = 17.8 % Wrong pair fraction (DATA) = (19.16 ± 1.10) %

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Fit procedure We obtain an extimate by minimizing The fit is done using a binned likelihood approach Where: n i = recostructed events i = for each MC event (according pure phase space): Evaluate its z true and its z rec (if any!) Enter an histogram with the value of z rec Weight the entry with  z true Weight the event with the fraction of combinatorial background, for the signal (bkg) if it has correct (wrong) pairing

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 The systematic check This procedure relies heavily on MC. The crucial checks for the analysis can be summarized in three main questions: I. Is MC correctly describing efficiencies ? II. Is MC correctly describing resolutions ? III. Is MC correctly estimating the “background” ?

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Efficiency (I) Correction to the photon efficiency is applied weighting the Montecarlo events for the Data/MC photon efficiency ratio ≈ 1  exp(  E  /8.1 )

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Efficiency (I) (Medium II sample) Correction to the photon efficiency is applied weighting the Montecarlo events for the Data/MC photon efficiency ratio ≈ 1  exp(  E  /8.1 )

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Efficiency (II) Further check is to look at the relative ratio between the different samples: N2/N1 data = ± N3/N1 data = ± N4/N1 data = ± N5/N1 data = ± N2/N1 mc = ± N3/N1 mc = ± N4/N1 mc = ± N5/N1 mc. = ±0.0003

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Resolution (I)

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Status reort on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Resolution (II) The center of Dalitz plot correspond to 3 pions with the same energy (E i = M  /3 = MeV). A good check of the MC performance in evaluating the energy resolution of  0 comes from the distribution of E  0  E i for z = 0

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Status report on    analysis Ponza =5 June 2008 Resolution (III) A further check can be done comparing the energies of the two photons in the pion rest frame as function of pion energy Vs.

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Statu report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Resolution (IV) A data MC discrepancy at level of 1  2 % is observed. Thus we fit filling a histo with: z’ rec = z gen +  (z rec  z gen ). A further check can be done comparing the energies of the two photons in the pion rest frame as function of pion energy

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Background Old Background composition, Medium II purity sample

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Background Old

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Background New Background composition, Medium II purity sample

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Background New

Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Linearity Check linearity of DATA/MCreco using for MC pure phase space… Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions

Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Results Old – New Range Low · 10  3 Medium I · 10  3 Medium II · 10  3 Medium III · 10  3 High · 10  3 (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  24 ± 5  20 ± 6 Range Low · 10  3 Medium I · 10  3 Medium II · 10  3 Medium III · 10  3 High · 10  3 (0, 1)  36 ± 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 Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions

Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Systematic uncertainties Old - New Effect Low · 10  3 Medium I · 10  3 Medium II · 10  3 Medium III · 10  3 High · 10  3 Res  9 9  6 6  4 4  3 3  3 3 Low E   1.6  1.9  1.6  1.3  1.4 Bkg0.  1 1  1 +1 MM  1 1  1 1  2 2  2 2  5 5 Range  4 4  3 3  4 4  4 4  3 +3 Purity    7 7  Tot     9  9  Effect Low · 10  3 Medium I · 10  3 Medium II · 10  3 Medium III · 10  3 Res Low E  negligible Bkg  2 2 MM  Range  8 +3  Purity  77 Tot     Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions

Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Data / Fit distribution New Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions

Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Data / Fit distribution Old Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions

Status report of    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Results No bkg - bkg Range Low · 10  3 Medium I · 10  3 Medium II · 10  3 Medium III · 10  3 (0, 1)  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 Range Low · 10  3 Medium I · 10  3 Medium II · 10  3 Medium III · 10  3 (0, 1)  36 ± 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 Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions

Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Systematic uncertainties No bkg - bkg Effect Low · 10  3 Medium I · 10  3 Medium II · 10  3 Medium III · 10  3 Res Low E  Bkg MM Range-4  2 +7  Purity  88 Tot     9 Effect Low · 10  3 Medium I · 10  3 Medium II · 10  3 Medium III · 10  3 Res Low E  negligible Bkg  2 2 MM  Range  8 +3  Purity  77 Tot     Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions

Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Data / Fit distribution Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions

Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Summary Using the Old approach, we have published this preliminary results: This result is compatible with the published Crystal Ball result:  =  ± And the calculations from the  +  -  analysis using only the  -  rescattering in the final state.  =  ± stat ± syst  =  ± stat syst Using the New approach we have:   <  <  0.036

Introduction Theoretical tools Results Conclusions Status report on    analysis Ponza 05 June 2008 Conclusions

Introduction Theoretical tools Results Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Spare Status report on    analysis

Introduction Theoretical tools Results Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Data / Fit ALL Status report on    analysis

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Ponza 05 June 2008 Background Old - New Status report on    analysis

Status of       analysis F. Ambrosino T. Capussela F. Perfetto Status of    analysis Ponza 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 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  i 0 for j-th combination = MeV is obtained as function of photon energies Ponza 05 June 2008

Status of    decay  Frascati 14 May 2008   min : Data-MC comparison

Introduction Analysis Results Conclusions Status of    analysis Energy resolution We have corrected the   for the observed Data-MC discrepancy Ponza 05 June 2008

Status of    analysis Sample selection OLD approach : 7 and only 7 pnc with 21 ° 10 MeV  > 18 ° Kin Fit with no mass constraint P(  2) > MeV < E  rad < 400 MeV AFTER PHOTON’S PAIRING Kinematic Fit with  and    mass constraints (on DATA M  = MeV/c 2 ) NEW approach : 7 and only 7 pnc with 21 ° 10 MeV  > 18 ° Kin Fit with  mass constraint ( on DATA M  = MeV/c2 ) P(  2) > MeV < E  rad < 400 MeV AFTER PHOTON’S PAIRING Kinematic Fit with    mass constraint Ponza 05 June 2008

Status of    analysis OLD – NEW results Range Low · 10  3 Medium I · 10  3 Medium II · 10  3 Medium III · 10  3 High · 10  3 (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  24 ± 5  20 ± 6 Range Low · 10  3 Medium I · 10  3 Medium II · 10  3 Medium III · 10  3 High · 10  3 (0, 1)  36 ± 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

Introduction Theoretical tools Results Conclusions Dalitz plot analysis of    with the KLOE experiment OLD – NEW systematic uncertainties Effect Low · 10  3 Medium I · 10  3 Medium II · 10  3 Medium III · 10  3 High · 10  3 Res  9 9  6 6  4 4  3 3  3 3 Low E   1.6  1.9  1.6  1.3  1.4 Bkg0.  1 1  1 +1 MM  1 1  1 1  2 2  2 2  5 5 Range  4 4  3 3  4 4  4 4  3 +3 Purity    7 7  Tot     9  9  Effect Low · 10  3 Medium I · 10  3 Medium II · 10  3 Medium III · 10  3 Res???? + 5????? Low E   0.2  0.1 .2  0.4 Bkg  2 2 MM  Range  8 +3  Purity  77 Tot     8 +1 Ponza 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):  =  ± stat ± syst In the NEW approach we give the final result for the slope parameter  in corrispondence of the sample with 95% of purity (MediumII):  =  ± stat / syst Ponza 05 June 2008

Status of    analysis 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 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 = RMS = Ponza 05 June 2008

Status of    decay    : Data-MC comparison Ponza 05 June 2008