Difference: ConnorsAnalysis-AnalysisTimeline (14 vs. 15)

Revision 152018-03-22 - ConnorGraham

Line: 1 to 1

META TOPICPARENT	name="ConnorsAnalysis"

Return the the main analysis page.

Switch to event timeline

Line: 10 to 10

Finish updating the user directory files (specifically CHODAnalysis) so that KaonEventAnalysis.cc runs correctly on 2017 data (check you are using the correct framework revision)
Run on one file to check functionality
Ensure blinding is maintained

Added:

>
>

Test over at least one full run

Run on as much data as possible
Try to run on any failed data files to complete the selection
Discus unblinding
Unblind starting with control regions
Write up results with the intention to publish eventually

Changed:

<
<

1. Updated the version of the user directory files and started testing [in progress]

>
>

1. Update the version of the user directory files and start testing [in progress]

Copied over a recent version of Giuseppe's codes (after a full backup), we need to check that these all work as intended with 2017 data and check that these are the most recent versions of the codes (and check for any missing, new codes).

Changed:

<
<

Starting with a test run on just TrackAnalysis (responsible for track to sub-detector matching, but no cuts) and TwoPhotonAnalysis (responsible for the pi0 variables), with just GigaTrackerEvtReco as a pre-analyzer and with the usual dependency libraries. This was done with a single, reprocessed, 2017, golden run file; specifically run 8252, filtered for Pnn, bursts 13-15.

>
>

Starting with a test run on just TrackAnalysis (responsible for track to sub-detector matching, but no cuts) and TwoPhotonAnalysis (responsible for the pi0 variables), with just GigaTrackerEvtReco as a pre-analyzer and with the usual dependency libraries. This was done with a single, reprocessed, 2017, golden run file; specifically run 8252, filtered for Pnn, bursts 13-15.
- Initial results suggest timing issues in the CHOD as expected
Next we will add the OneTrackEventAnalysis code and test that
Later we will add KaonEventAnalysis and any new pre-analyzers

Using K_μ2 as a normalisation sample [done]

The overall aim of NA62 if to measure the branching fraction (using BR as the canonical shorthand from here) of the decay K⁺→π⁺νν. In order to do so, we must account for errors both statistical and systematic. Therefore, if we measure the BR and normalise the number of events we observe by dividing it by one of the primary kaon decays (μ⁺ν or π⁺π⁰) we can cancel many of the major systematics. If we use both primary decays for a normalisation sample and compare the value, we can check if we are properly accounting for all systematics, as both should provide the same result. First we use the number of observed events of decay i:

Line: 43 to 46

Take basic acceptance cut of 105 (possibly 115) to 165m
Bin events that pass all cuts by momentum as has been done in previous studies (15-20, 20-25, 25-30, 30-35 GeV)
Calculate binned acceptance by dividing by all events that pass Kmu2 cuts, recorded using the binning system, by the number that passed the truth geometric acceptance (such that the bins sum to the total acceptance)

Changed:

<
<

Step 3: Run on as much 2016 data as possible with HTCondor to calculate a value for "N_μ⁺ν". [almost finished]

Run selection on run number 6431 (large, good quality run) to start with [done]
Run on Giuseppe's list of all good runs of 2016 [running]

>
>

Step 3: Run on as much 2016 data as possible with HTCondor to calculate a value for "N_μ⁺ν". [done]

Run selection on run number 6431 (large, good quality run) to start with
Run on Giuseppe's list of all good runs of 2016

Step 4: Start looking at the efficiencies that don't cancel in the acceptances fraction "ε_r".

Pion ID efficiency: where the efficiency of pion ID in Pnn data "ε_π^data(π⁺νν)" can be described by: [being studied by others]

ε_π^data(π⁺νν) = ε_π^MC(π⁺νν)⋅^{ε_π^data(π⁺π⁰)}/_{ε_π^MC(π⁺π⁰)}

View topic | History: r20 < r19 < r18 < r17 | More topic actions...

Difference: ConnorsAnalysis-AnalysisTimeline (14 vs. 15)

Revision 152018-03-22 - ConnorGraham

Using Kμ2 as a normalisation sample [done]

Using K_μ2 as a normalisation sample [done]