RICH efficiency 2011

Transcription

1 RICH efficiency 2 Malte Wilfert Institut für ernphysik Johannes GutenbergUniversität Mainz December 7 th 23 Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th 23 / 26

2 Aim Determine the RICH efficiency for 2 Sample with: ππ Φ Λ πp Determine the type of one of the particles Id of the second one fixed Get the answer from the rich for the second particle Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th 23 2 / 26

3 LH calculation L N = N ph k= [ ] ( ɛ)g(θ ph rec,k, φph rec,k ) + ɛb(θph rec,k ) G(θ, φ) = ( ) σ exp (θ Θmass ) 2 2π 2σ 2 B(θ) = 2 Θ 2 M θ θ Θ mass Normalised to number of photons: L = N L N Θ M = 7mrad upper limit of θ range Θ mass Cherenkov angle for p, m Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th 23 3 / 26

4 General Cuts Best primary vertex Incoming + scattered muon Vertex inside the target Extrapolated beam track crosses all cells. < y <.9 Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th 23 4 / 26

5 / Λ selection Secondary vertex, 2 outgoing particles Opposite charge Particle XX < p > GeV Particle has fit parameter z Last < 35 cm Track not connected to any primary vertex p + t > 23 MeV Distance vertices > 2σ Collinearity cut > m(π, π) m( ) < 5 MeV m(π, p) m(λ) > MeV m(π, p) m(λ) < 5 MeV m(π, π) m( ) > MeV Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th 23 5 / 26

6 Φ selection 2 additional outgoing particles (prim. vertex) opposite charge 2 < p < 7 GeV E miss < 2.5 GeV z Last > 35 cm p + t > 23 MeV m(, ) m(φ) < 5 MeV Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th 23 6 / 26

7 RICH cuts Remove RICH pipe Pions LH(π)/LH() > (.2) LH(π)/LH(p) > (.2) LH(π)/LH(bg) > (2.2) aons LH()/LH(π) >.2 (.8) LH()/LH(p) > (.8) LH()/LH(bg) >.24 (2.8) Protons above threshold LH(p)/LH(π) > LH(p)/LH() > LH(p)/LH(bg) > Protons below threshold LH(bg)/LH(π) > (.48) LH(bg)/LH() > (.36) OR all LH = Cuts used in the multiplicity analysis, if different Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th 23 7 / 26

8 Binning and fit function 2θ bins:.,.4,.2 3p bins:.,., 2., 3., 5., 7., 9., 22., 25., 27., 3., 35., 4., 5. GeV/c : 2 Gaussian + Polynomial Λ: 2 Gaussian + (x thr) n exp( a(x thr)) φ: convolution rel. BreitWigner and Gaussian + (x thr) n exp( a(x thr)) Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th 23 8 / 26

9 N_a_b = 293 ± N_a_b = 473 ± 22 N_a_s = 38 ± 366 N_k_b = 69 ± 5 N_k_s = 9.4 ± 9. N_p_b = 653 ± 57 N_p_s = 2432 ± 63 N_pi_b = 2862 ± 94 N_pi_s = ±.22 N_u_b =. N_u_s =. frac_s =.5 ±.4 ka =.66 ±. kp =.8 ±.47 ka =.275 ±.8 kp =.967 ±.58 k2a =.32 ±.2 k2p =.66 ±.45 mean = ±.7 GeV sigma =.8 ±.58 GeV sigma2 =.4799 ±.26 GeV N_a_s = ±.2 N_k_b = 363 ± 6 N_k_s = ±.79 N_p_b = 46 ± 7 N_p_s = ±.9 N_pi_b = 27 ± 23 N_pi_s = ±.4 N_u_b =. N_u_s =. a =.98 ±.46 a2 = 6.7 ±.6 a3 = 9.6 ±.2 mean =.2522 ±.37 GeV n =.67 ±.22 n2 =.72 ±.32 n3 = ±.83 sigma =.3 ±.7 GeV thr = ±.33 GeV N_a_b = 76 ± N_a_s = 2793 ± 57 N_k_b = 6. ± 4.2 N_k_s = 38. ± 6.3 N_p_b = 274 ± 8 N_p_s = ±.82 N_pi_b = 884 ± 3 N_pi_s = 254 ± 9 N_u_b =. N_u_s =. a = 44 ± a2 = 4 ± frac_s =.42 ±.68 mean =.5956 ±.3 GeV n = 3.8 ±.2 n2 = 2.63 ±.54 sigma =.295 ±.7 GeV sigma2 =.525 ±.79 GeV thr =.9 ±.3 GeV thr2 =.9 ±.27 GeV Fit no ID π p unk all: < p <,. < θ <.4 pi k p unk 7 6 Events / (. GeV ) Events / (. GeV ) Events / (. GeV ) 8 6 Events / (. GeV ) Events / (. GeV ) all: < p <,. < θ < pi k p unk φ Events / (.2 GeV ) Events / (.2 GeV ) Events / (.2 GeV ) Events / (.2 GeV ) Events / (.2 GeV ) all: < p <,. < θ < pi k p unk Λ Events / (. GeV ) Events / (. GeV ) Events / (. GeV ) Events / (. GeV ) Events / (. GeV ) One Particle correct identified Colors: Full model bgn signal signal Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th 23 9 / 26

10 Checks and Results Check the results from the fit with the one obtained with sidebins Compare the results from my LH cuts with the multiplicity ones Compare my and Quielas results Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th 23 / 26

11 Sidebins all π > π fit. < θ <.4 sidebin. < θ <.4 fit.4 < θ <.2 sidebin.4 < θ < m(π π) [GeV] all.9.8 > fit. < θ <.4 sidebin. < θ <.4 fit.4 < θ <.2 sidebin.4 < θ < m( ) [GeV] Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th 23 / 26

12 Sum of all efficiencies (my LH cuts).2 Check π.2 Check.2 Check p Check π Check Check p Good agreement with = Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th 23 2 / 26

13 RICH π comparison between diff LH cuts π > π π > my. < θ <.4.8 my. < θ <.4.4 mult. < θ <.4.6 mult. < θ < my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ <.2.4 my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ < π > p π > unknown my. < θ <.4.25 my. < θ <.4.6 mult. < θ <.4.2 mult. < θ <.4.4 my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ <.2.5. my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ < Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th 23 3 / 26

14 RICH π + comparison between diff LH cuts π + > π π + > my. < θ <.4.8 my. < θ <.4.4 mult. < θ <.4.6 mult. < θ < my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ <.2.4 my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ < π + > p π + > unknown my. < θ <.4.25 my. < θ <.4.6 mult. < θ <.4.2 mult. < θ <.4.4 my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ <.2.5. my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ < Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th 23 4 / 26

15 RICH comparison between diff LH cuts > π > my. < θ <.4.5 my. < θ <.4.6 mult. < θ <.4.4 mult. < θ <.4.4 my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ < my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ < > p > unknown my. < θ <.4.4 my. < θ <.4.6 mult. < θ <.4.3 mult. < θ <.4.4 my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ <.2.2 my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ < Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th 23 5 / 26

16 RICH + comparison between diff LH cuts + > π + > my. < θ <.4.5 my. < θ <.4.6 mult. < θ <.4.4 mult. < θ <.4.4 my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ < my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ < > p + > unknown my. < θ <.4.4 my. < θ <.4.6 mult. < θ <.4.3 mult. < θ <.4.4 my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ <.2.2 my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ < Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th 23 6 / 26

17 RICH p comparison between diff LH cuts p > π p > my. < θ <.4.8 my. < θ <.4.6 mult. < θ <.4.6 mult. < θ <.4.4 my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ <.2.4 my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ < p > p.4 p > unknown my. < θ <.4.2 my. < θ <.4.4 mult. < θ <.4.5 mult. < θ < my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ <.2. my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ < Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th 23 7 / 26

18 RICH p comparison between diff LH cuts p > π p > my. < θ <.4.8 my. < θ <.4.6 mult. < θ <.4.6 mult. < θ <.4.4 my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ <.2.4 my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ < p > p p > unknown my. < θ <.4.2 my. < θ <.4.4 mult. < θ <.4.5 mult. < θ < my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ <.2. my.4 < θ <.2 mult.4 < θ < Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th 23 8 / 26

19 Sum of all efficiencies (my LH cuts).2 Check π.2 Check.2 Check p Check π Check Check p Good agreement with = Except for first p bin Next step: Compare with 26 results Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th 23 9 / 26

20 RICH π comparison with Quiela(26) π > π π > < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ <.2 2. < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < π > p π > unknown < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th 23 2 / 26

21 RICH π + comparison with Quiela(26) π + > π π + > < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ <.2 2. < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < π + > p π + > unknown < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th 23 2 / 26

22 RICH comparison with Quiela(26) > π > < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ <.4 2. < θ < < θ < < θ < > p > unknown < θ < < θ < < θ <.2 2. < θ < < θ <.2 2. < θ < < θ < < θ < Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th / 26

23 RICH + comparison with Quiela(26) + > π + > < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ <.4 2. < θ < < θ < < θ < > p + > unknown < θ < < θ < < θ <.2 2. < θ < < θ <.2 2. < θ < < θ < < θ < Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th / 26

24 RICH p comparison with Quiela(26) p > π p > < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < p > p.8 p > unknown < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th / 26

25 RICH p comparison with Quiela(26) p > π p > < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < p > p p > unknown < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < < θ < Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th / 26

26 Summary RICH efficiency table for 2 created Two different sets of LH cuts Results compared with the 26 tables Malte Wilfert (PH Mainz) 2 December 7 th / 26