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.

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

CC Background Systematic 3 Philip Rodrigues Oxford Group Meeting 30/10/07.
CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)
1 Cross-section systematics Broad aims of this study: –Evaluate the effect of cross-section uncertainties on the all-event CC analysis (selection efficiencies,
Kalanand Mishra BaBar Coll. Meeting Sept 26, /12 Development of New SPR-based Kaon, Pion, Proton, and Electron Selectors Kalanand Mishra University.
1 CC analysis update Status of the cross-section reweighting package Status of the Physics Analysis Ntuple (PAN) D. A. Petyt Nov 3 rd 2004.
Summary of downstream PID MICE collaboration meeting Fermilab Rikard Sandström.
Emily Thompson May 5 – UMass HEP Exp Group Meeting 1 Tag-probe method: Fitting Z → μ + μ - mass peaks Motivation: 1. Want to use long p T tail of muon.
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.
Particle Identification in the NA48 Experiment Using Neural Networks L. Litov University of Sofia.
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.
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:
Exclusive D s Semileptonic decays using kinematic fitting.
25 April Antineutrino selection for constraining the e beam Goal: extract component of  rate from  + decays Requirement: High purity at low neutrino.
Dec 2005Jean-Sébastien GraulichSlide 1 Improving MuCal Design o Why we need an improved design o Improvement Principle o Quick Simulation, Analysis & Results.
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.
April 1, Beam measurement with -Update - David Jaffe & Pedro Ochoa 1)Reminder of proposed technique 2)Use of horn-off data 3)Use of horn2-off data?
1 Recent developments on sensitivity calculations Effect of combined le and me running –Is there a statistical advantage over pure le running? Discrimination.
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.
Far Detector Fiducial Volume Study Andy Blake Cambridge University Thursday December 7 th 2006.
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.
P. Vahle, Fermilab Oct An Alternate Approach to the CC Measurement— Predicting the FD Spectrum Patricia Vahle University College London Fermilab.
A Monte Carlo exploration of methods to determine the UHECR composition with the Pierre Auger Observatory D.D’Urso for the Pierre Auger Collaboration
Minnesota Simulations Dan Hennessy, Peter Litchfield, Leon Mualem  Improvements to the Minnesota analysis  Comparison with the Stanford analysis  Optimisation.
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.
Optimizing DHCAL single particle energy resolution Lei Xia Argonne National Laboratory 1 LCWS 2013, Tokyo, Japan November , 2013.
Apr. 4, KEK JHF-SK neutrino workshop 1 e appearance search Yoshihisa OBAYASHI (KEK - IPNS)
CALICE Digital Hadron Calorimeter: Calibration and Response to Pions and Positrons International Workshop on Future Linear Colliders LCWS 2013 November.
Kalanand Mishra Kaon Neural Net 1 Retraining Kaon Neural Net Kalanand Mishra University of Cincinnati.
1 CC analysis – systematic errors At the last collaboration meeting it was recognised that we needed to develop tools to enable us to properly assess the.
Search for Electron Neutrino Appearance in MINOS Mhair Orchanian California Institute of Technology On behalf of the MINOS Collaboration DPF 2011 Meeting.
Kalanand Mishra BaBar Coll. Meeting December, /11 New Kaon Neural Net Selectors Kalanand Mishra University of Cincinnati  Overview  New selectors’
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.
Cedar and pre-Daikon Validation ● CC PID parameter based CC sample selections with Birch, Cedar, Carrot and pre-Daikon. ● Cedar validation for use with.
A bin-free Extended Maximum Likelihood Fit + Feldman-Cousins error analysis Peter Litchfield  A bin free Extended Maximum Likelihood method of fitting.
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.
Study of the ND Data/MC for the CC analysis October 14, 2005 MINOS collaboration meeting M.Ishitsuka Indiana University.
Kalanand Mishra BaBar Coll. Meeting February, /8 Development of New Kaon Selectors Kalanand Mishra University of Cincinnati.
Various Rupak Mahapatra (for Angela, Joel, Mike & Jeff) Timing Cuts.
Update on Rolling Cascade Search Brennan Hughey UW-Madison
Low Z Detector Simulations
1 Performance of a Magnetised Scintillating Detector for a Neutrino Factory Scoping Study Meeting U.C. Irvine Monday 21 st August 2006 M. Ellis & A. Bross.
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.
Electron Spectrometer: Status July 14 Simon Jolly, Lawrence Deacon 1 st July 2014.
MINOS Coll Meet. Oxford, Jan CC/NC Data Cross Checks Thomas Osiecki University of Texas at Austin.
Hadron production in C+C at 1 and 2 A GeV analysis of data from experiments NOV02 and AUG04 for high resolution tracking (Runge-Kutta tracks) Pavel Tlustý,
S.A. Voloshin STAR ICHEP 2006, Moscow, RUSSIA, July 26 – August 2, 2006page1 Sergei A. Voloshin Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan for the STAR.
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.
Paolo Massarotti Kaon meeting March 2007  ±  X    X  Time measurement use neutral vertex only in order to obtain a completely independent.
Alternative Code to Calculate NMH Sensitivity J. Brunner 16/10/
Hadron production in C+C at 2 A GeV measured by the HADES spectrometer Nov02 gen3 analysis and results for spline tracks (shown in Dubna) changes - removing.
PAC questions and Simulations Peter Litchfield, August 27 th Extent to which MIPP/MINER A can help estimate far detector backgrounds by extrapolation.
Miscellaneous W mass studies Comment on V.1681 result Muon Error test Different Estimators for the 4q channel CR and Cones.
Photon Reconstruction Efficiencies in Higgs → γγ Events Neil Cooper-Smith RHUL ATLAS UK Higgs Meeting - Durham 11/01/07.
Photon purity measurement on JF17 Di jet sample using Direct photon working Group ntuple Z.Liang (Academia Sinica,TaiWan) 6/24/20161.
Photon Selection Algorithm Ming Yang , Mingshui Chen BESIII Meeting
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.
Converted photon and π 0 discrimination based on H    analysis.
Preliminary T2K beam simulation using the G4 2km detector
Tree based validation tool for track reconstruction
Detector Configuration for Simulation (i)
Dilepton Mass. Progress report.
Higgs  update Catalin and Tony May 22, 2007
Presentation transcript:

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 neural net Gallery of events passing/failing PID cuts D.A. Petyt Sep 1 st 2004

2 Effect of improved tracking in R1.9 R1.9 R1.7 R1.9 tracking better; CC selection harder (more high-y events passing cuts)

3 Effect of improved tracking - pmu R1.9 R1.7 R1.9 tracking improvements obvious in top-right plot

4 R1.9 reco/selection effics for QEL/RES/DIS

5 PID performance CC NC Cut at –0.4: 85% CC efficiency, 93% NC rejection

6 Energy resolution range Showers in CC events Showers in NC events Eshw=shw.ph.GeV[0]/1.23

7 Visible energy distributions CC NC Positive bias in CC plot reco true

8 Comparison of old and new 5 year plan analysis

9 Comparison of old and new R1.7 analysis

10 Comparison of old and new R1.9 analysis

11 PID: comparing techniques Looked at neural net class in ROOT (TMultiLayerPerceptron) to see how it compares with likelihood technique for separating CC and NC events Used same variables (event length, track pulse height fraction, track ph/plane) as likelihood analysis. Only used events with evlength<50 planes (events longer than this were assumed to be CC-like) Advantages of NN: Correlations between variables accounted for No binning problems Advantages of Likelihood method: Simplicity, transparency

12 Comparison of PID parameters CC NC Trained NN outputs a weight: ~0 for NC events, ~1 for CC Using re-defined PID parameter: PID=p_mu/(p_mu+p_nc)

13 Comparison of PID performance Red: NN, Black: likelihood Thick: all events, Thin: E_nu<3 GeV NN does better overall – thick red curve higher than black curve. Presumably this is because correlations between variables are taken into account Likelihood seems better for low E events – not entirely sure why this is at the moment…

14 CC events passing cuts Cut is PID_lik>0.95

15  p+  

16  n+    

17  p

18 NC events passing cuts

19 n    

20    n +  

21 49 planes long Classified NC by NN

22 Long NC event passing 50 plane cut

23 5  in FS – leading p  ~ 5 GeV

24 CC events failing cuts

25  GeV        n

26  n +  

27  n +     