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:

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Update on Data / MC Comparisons for Low Hadronic Energy CC-like Events Reminder of problem Fiducial studies with more MC statistics Effect of offset in.
Advertisements

CC Background Systematic 3 Philip Rodrigues Oxford Group Meeting 30/10/07.
Beam-plug and shielding studies related to HCAL and M2 Robert Paluch, Burkhard Schmidt November 25,
Soudan 2 Peter Litchfield University of Minnesota For the Soudan 2 collaboration Argonne-Minnesota-Oxford-RAL-Tufts-Western Washington  Analysis of all.
N. Saoulidou Fermilab 1 Update on track reconstruction in the Near Detector N. Saoulidou, Fermilab
Reconstruction Issues in Cosmic Ray Muons Maury Goodman/Gavril Giurgiu & Jurgen Reichenbacher.
Event Reconstruction Andy Blake Cambridge University.
Off-axis Simulations Peter Litchfield, Minnesota  What has been simulated?  Will the experiment work?  Can we choose a technology based on simulations?
CC analysis progress This talk: –A first attempt at calculating CC energy sensitivity using the Far Mock data MC files with full reconstruction. –Quite.
1 previously, when I calculated event selection efficiencies, I defined efficiencies as the following: efficiency in electron channel = (total number of.
MINOS Feb Antineutrino running Pedro Ochoa Caltech.
Mar 31, 2005Steve Kahn -- Ckov and Tof Detector Simulation 1 Ckov1, Ckov2, Tof2 MICE Pid Tele-Meeting Steve Kahn 31 March 2005.
1Calice-UK Cambridge 9/9/05D.R. Ward David Ward Compare Feb’05 DESY data with Geant4 and Geant3 Monte Carlos. Work in progress – no definitive conclusions.
Update on NC/CC separation At the previous phone meeting I presented a method to separate NC/CC using simple cuts on reconstructed quantities available.
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.
Atmospheric Neutrino Event Reconstruction Andy Blake Cambridge University June 2004.
1 May 27, 2005 Comparison tower A data and Montecarlo OVERVIEW Comparison of MC (EM- v 4r060302p18 ) and tower A data using the “baseline” run (Run )
25 April Antineutrino selection for constraining the e beam Goal: extract component of  rate from  + decays Requirement: High purity at low neutrino.
1 CC update –  momentum resolution Software news: –Converted code to read Sue’s ntuples. Allows use of Chris’s analysis framework (including event display)
CC/NC SEPARATION STUDY Andy Blake Cambridge University Friday February 23 rd 2007.
1 Latest CC analysis developments New selection efficiencies: –Based on C++ reco + PDFs rather than old (Fortran+reco_minos) cuts –Attempt to optimise.
FD event selection and data/MC comparisons Motivation of this study –Look at FD events (with blinding scheme imposed) to determine Whether we observe neutrino.
In order to acquire the full physics potential of the LHC, the ATLAS electromagnetic calorimeter must be able to efficiently identify photons and electrons.
Data-based background predictions using forward events Victor Pavlunin and David Stuart University of California Santa Barbara July 10, 2008.
MonteCarlo simulation of neutrino interactions in PEANUT Giovanni De Lellis on behalf of Alberto Marotta and Andrea Russo Naples University.
1 CC analysis update Repeat of CC analysis with R1.9 ntuples –What is the effect of improved tracking efficiency? Alternative PID methods: likelihood vs.
1/16 MDC post-mortem redux Status as of last CC meeting: –True values of cross-section and oscillation parameters were used to reweight the ND and FD MC.
Identification of neutrino oscillations in the MINOS detector Daniel Cole
CC ANALYSIS STUDIES Andy Blake Cambridge University Fermilab, September 2006.
Monte Carlo Comparison of RPCs and Liquid Scintillator R. Ray 5/14/04  RPCs with 1-dimensional readout (generated by RR) and liquid scintillator with.
DHCAL - Resolution (S)DHCAL Meeting January 15, 2014 Lyon, France Burak Bilki, José Repond and Lei Xia Argonne National Laboratory.
W + /W - and l + /l - A Means to investigate PDFs T. Schörner-Sadenius, G. Steinbrück Hamburg University HERA-LHC Workshop, CERN, October 2004.
1 Cosmic Muon Analysis: Current Status Stuart Mufson, Brian Rebel Argonne March 18, 2005.
N. Saoulidou Fermilab 1 Status & Update of track reconstruction in the Near Detector N. Saoulidou, Fermilab
AND/OR - Are MC and Data (in)consistent? - further analysis and new measurements to do - Effects on inefficiency evaluation 1 G. Martellotti 21/05/2015.
Detector Monte-Carlo ● Goal: Develop software tools to: – Model detector performance – Study background issues – Calculate event rates – Determine feasibility.
RICH upgrade simulation: updates S.Easo RICH upgrade-mechanics meeting 1.
© Imperial College LondonPage 1 Tracking & Ecal Positional/Angular Resolution Hakan Yilmaz.
First Look at Data and MC Comparisons for Cedar and Birch ● Comparisons of physics quantities for CC events with permutations of Cedar, Birch, Data and.
N. Saoulidou, Fermilab, MINOS Collaboration Meeting N. Saoulidou, Fermilab, ND/CC Parallel Session, MINOS Collaboration Meeting R1.18.
1ECFA/Vienna 16/11/05D.R. Ward David Ward Compare these test beam data with Geant4 and Geant3 Monte Carlos. CALICE has tested an (incomplete) prototype.
Cedar and pre-Daikon Validation ● CC PID parameter based CC sample selections with Birch, Cedar, Carrot and pre-Daikon. ● Cedar validation for use with.
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.
FTKSim Status and plans FTK Meeting 07/13/2006 F. Crescioli, M. Dell'Orso, G. Punzi, G.Volpi, P. Giannetti.
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,
Mark Dorman UCL/RAL MINOS Collaboration Meeting Fermilab, Oct. 05 Data/MC Comparisons and Estimating the ND Flux with QE Events ● Update on QE event selection.
Medium baseline neutrino oscillation searches Andrew Bazarko, Princeton University Les Houches, 20 June 2001 LSND: MeVdecay at rest MeVdecay in flight.
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’
Muons at CalDet Introduction Track Finder Package ADC Corrections Drift Points Path Length Attenuation Strip-to-Strip Calibration Scintillator Response.
Progress Report on GEANT Study of Containerized Detectors R. Ray 7/11/03 What’s New Since Last Time?  More detailed container description in GEANT o Slightly.
A different cc/nc oscillation analysis Peter Litchfield  The Idea:  Translate near detector events to the far detector event-by-event, incorporating.
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.
NUMI NUMI/MINOS Status J. Musser for the MINOS Collatoration 2002 FNAL Users Meeting.
Status of QEL Analysis ● QEL-like Event Selection and Sample ● ND Flux Extraction ● Fitting for MINOS Collaboration Meeting FNAL, 7 th -10 th December.
Extrapolation Techniques  Four different techniques have been used to extrapolate near detector data to the far detector to predict the neutrino energy.
Mark Dorman UCL/RAL MINOS WITW June 05 An Update on Using QE Events to Estimate the Neutrino Flux and Some Preliminary Data/MC Comparisons for a QE Enriched.
Nuance / Neut comparison  Comparisons on a generator and simulation level (all information is read from.root files produced by Geant)  Neut file:
R.W. Assmann, V. Boccone, F. Cerutti, M. Huhtinen, A. Mereghetti
Michele Faucci Giannelli
Neutral Current Interactions in MINOS Alexandre Sousa, University of Oxford for the MINOS Collaboration Neutrino Events in MINOS Neutrino interactions.
Some introduction Cosmics events can produce energetic jets and missing energy. They need to be discriminated from collision events with true MET and jets.
J. Musser for the MINOS Collatoration 2002 FNAL Users Meeting
A PID based approach for antineutrino selection
First look at data/MC comparison for period 8 reference runs
Detector Configuration for Simulation (i)
Comparison Of High Energy Hadronic Interaction Models
Comparison Of High Energy Hadronic Interaction Models
RecoTracks Revisited.
Presentation transcript:

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: Generator: NEUGEN v3 with INTRANUKE Detector simulation: DetSim + various geometry improvements Up-to-date NuMI fluxes I have run Standard Reconstruction on ~20000 events from the new far detector MC file and have compared the results with previous studies. Some differences in the processing include the use of different ROOT and minossoft versions – not yet clear whether this has a significant effect on the result. D. A. Petyt 4 th Feb ‘04

2 Truth quantities – left: old file, right: new file True neutrino energy y distribution Some enhancement evident in this region New file has a much flatter y distribution – is this an expected result of the recent changes to NEUGEN?

3 y versus E – top: old file, bottom: new file 0-2 GeV >4 GeV 2-4 GeV 0-2 GeV Flatter y distribution implies that NC/CC separation will be more difficult in new MC file

4 Truth quantities contd. True muon momentum True shower energy These differences can be explained by the flatter y distribution in thenew MC file No obvious effect of INTRANUKE in this plot – presumably washed out by the change in the y distribution?

5 Some numbers Track-finding efficiency is higher in the new MC file, at the expense of a much higher probability of finding a track in NC events –What is the cause of this change? –One possible contribution – apparent 8 plane tracking threshold in old file compared to 6 plane threshold in new (see PDF plots later in this talk). However, it seems that this can only partially explain the difference. QuantityOld fileNew file Number of CC events CC events in fid vol (true vtx) CC events with reco. track 9087 (88.5%)9580 (89.9%) Number of NC events NC events in fid vol (true vtx) NC events with reco. track 691 (19.9%)1777 (67.2%)

6 PDFs used for event selection – old file Number of planes in track Fraction of digits in track Track pulse height per plane CC NC

7 PDFs used for event selection – new file Number of planes in track Fraction of digits in track Track pulse height per plane What’s happening in this variable? Why does hit fraction cut off at 0.8?

8 A closer look at PDF variable #2 Hit fraction for new file seems stuck below 0.8. Why is this? –My guess is that this is due to many low pulse height hits in the event (a.k.a. cross-talk) that are not included in the track. These hits are not present (or are at a much lower level) in the old file Fraction of digits in track, plotted for y<0.2 OLDNEW

9 New variable Since cross-talk hits have low pulse height, a more reasonable track- like estimator in this case is the fraction of total pulse height contained in the track. The two plots below show the distribution of this variable for CC events in the old file (left) and the new file (right). The cut-off at 0.8 in the new file is eliminated. The low ‘shoulder’ in the right-hand distribution is more promiment, but this is likely to be a manifestation of the flatter y-distribution in the new file OLDNEW

10 PDFs – old file, with pulse height fraction variable

11 PDFs – new file

12 PDFs with 50 plane cut – old file

13 PDFs with 50 plane cut – new file

14 The initial conclusions of this study are: –The new MC file has a flatter y-distribution (is this expected from the recent NEUGEN updates?) –NC and CC distributions are less distinct as a result – NC/CC separation will be more difficult (this was also the conclusion of a similar NEUGEN2/NEUGEN3 comparison I did with off-axis MC) –The presence of what I claim are cross-talk hits makes pulse height-based variables preferable to hit-based variables. –No obvious signatures of INTRANUKE effects yet, although the ntuple format is not ideally suited to this (can’t study pion multiplicities for example). I haven’t looked at event separation/selection efficiencies yet, although this is the logical next step –Expect efficiencies/purities to be somewhat worse for the reasons stated above Summary and future work