1. HES-HKS & KaoS meeting

2. Contents

3. Different distorted initial matrices Distorted matrix sample 6 (dist6) Distorted matrix sample 7 (dist7) Distorted matrix sample 8 (dist8)

4. Differential non-linearity (older sample) Missing mass [GeV/c 2 ]

5. Before and after the optimization (dist6)

6. Standard deviation due to matrices (dist6) σ = sqrt(σ mat +σ stat ) σ mat = sqrt(σ-σ stat )

7. Results for (dist8) (g.s. fitting mean )– M gen [keV] A σ mat [keV] B Lambda21.2 Sigma44.3 7 Λ He23.0 9 Λ Li17.5 10 Λ Be19.9 12 Λ B15.6 52 Λ Cr5.2

8. Results for (dist7) (g.s. fitting mean )– M gen [keV] A σ mat [keV] B Lambda6.8 Sigma26.7 7 Λ He16.6 9 Λ Li29.1 10 Λ Be24.2 12 Λ B26.6 52 Λ Cr27.6

9. Results for (dist6) (g.s. fitting mean )– M gen [keV] A σ mat [keV] B Lambda32.9 Sigma43.0 7 Λ He32.8 9 Λ Li29.2 10 Λ Be9.6 12 Λ B33.0 52 Λ Cr37.0

10. Summary １ [Systematic errors] 5% of target thickness uncertainty  Λ, Σ 0 : < 50 keV  Hypernucleus : < 20 keV

11. Decomposition of 1 - and 2 - -B Λ [MeV] Counts Chunhua’s spectrum

12. Test conditions Common conditions for tests  N point = 100  Step = 0.002 MeV  Mean1: -11.45 – Step * i (i<N point )  Mean2: -11.45 + Step * i (i<N point ) Parameters Chunhua’s spectrum σ = 0.231 (fixed) Han’s spectrum σ = 0.300 (fixed) Toshi’s spectrum σ = 0.210 (fixed)

13. Definition

14. Chunhua2009 (fixed at σ=0.231) No cut Amp1>Amp2 Amp1<Amp2 Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV]

15. Han2005 (fixed at σ=0.300) No cut Amp1>Amp2 Amp1<Amp2 Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV]

16. Toshi2009(fixed at σ=0.210) No cut Amp1>Amp2 Amp1<Amp2 Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV]

17. Simulation

18. Generated dummy data -B Λ [MeV] [Counts/240 keV] SIMULATION

19. Test conditions (Simulation)  N point = 100  Step = 0.002 MeV  Mean1: -11.32 – Step * i (i<N point )  Mean2: -11.32 + Step * i (i<N point )

20. Fitting results (1) Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] σ = 160 keV σ = 170 keV σ = 180 keV Assumed width for fitting SIMULATION

21. Fitting results (2) Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] σ = 190 keV σ = 195 keV SIMULATION

22. Fitting results (3) Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] σ = 205 keV σ = 210 keV σ = 220 keV SIMULATION

23. Scan by changing assumed width 1.Chunhua2009 2.Toshi2009

24. Chunhua2009 scan (1) Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] σ = 190 keV σ = 200 keV σ = 210 keV Assumed width for fitting

25. Chunhua2009 scan (2) Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] σ = 220 keV σ = 230 keV σ = 240 keV Assumed width for fitting

26. Chunhua2009 scan (3) Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] σ = 250 keV

27. Toshi2009 scan (1) Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] σ = 190 keV σ = 200 keV σ = 205 keV Assumed width for fitting

28. Toshi2009 scan (2) Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] σ = 210 keV σ = 215 keV σ = 220 keV Assumed width for fitting

29. Toshi2009 scan (2) Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] σ = 230 keV σ = 240 keV σ = 250 keV Assumed width for fitting

30. Summary 2 [About 12 Λ B(1 -,2 - ) separation] What we can say from this study We could not reproduce paper values…. (E01-011 data could be reproduced though) (I would like to see Hampton’s side study) What we thought from this study In the case of simple Gaussian Two separated peaks by 160 keV might be distinguished if the resolution is known. In the real case (peaks are not simple Gaussian distributions) Need to confirm whether this method works or not for peaks which affected by energy straggling, production point displacement from matrix origin, detector resolutions, spectrometer acceptance, beam raster and so on.  Can be checked by blind analyses. Is there any good cut (selection) condition to find the answer ?  need further study.

31. Summary 2 [ 12 Λ B の 1-,2- の分離に関して ] このスタディの結果 タン先生が論文で言っている (1-,2-) の分離は再現できな い … ( 異なる幅を仮定しても ) 思ったこと シンプルなガウシアンの場合 分解能が分かれば数 10keV の精度で 160keV の分離は分けられ るかも ?  さらなるスタディが必要 実際は tail がある ( シンプルなガウシアンではない ) Energy struggling, matrix tuning 等の効果があるときに、この方 法が work するのか？  Blind analysis でチェック可能 カット ( 選定 ) 条件を工夫したら、よりうまく答えが見つ かるのか？

32. END

33. Backu p

34. Fitting range -11.9 ~ -10.8 MeV Fitting range を変えると様相が変わる

35. Chunhua2009 scan (1) Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] σ = 190 keV σ = 200 keV σ = 210 keV Assumed width for fitting

36. Chunhua2009 scan (2) Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] σ = 220 keV σ = 230 keV σ = 240 keV Assumed width for fitting

37. Chunhua2009 scan (3) Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] σ = 250 keV

38. |χ 2 -1.0| distribution

39. |χ 2 -1.0| distribution (Chunhua2009) Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] σ = 231 keV (fixed) Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] |χ 2 -1.0|

40. |χ 2 -1.0| distribution (Toshi2009) Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] σ = 200 keV (fixed) Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] |χ 2 -1.0|

41. Old version (Wrong…)

42. | χ 2 /NDF – 1.0 | with no cut condition Chunhua Han Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV]

43. | χ 2 /NDF – 1.0 | with no cut condition Toshi Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV]

44. | χ 2 /NDF – 1.0 | (Amp1 < Amp2) Chunhua Han Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV] Mean1 [MeV]

45. | χ 2 /NDF – 1.0 | (Amp1 < Amp2) Toshi Mean1 [MeV] Mean2 [MeV]

46. Simulation