Difference: AstridLogbook (40 vs. 41)

Revision 412015-04-29 - AstridVauthier

Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="AliceGrenoble"
-- CatherineSilvestre - 13 Mar 2014
Line: 6 to 6
 

xE Distribution

Added:
>
>
April 29, 2015 Decide to re-use the Twiki after a long break. The analysis is moving on. All the code is done. We are in check period.
 
Added:
>
>
For the moment we check if all the gamma decay contributions are compatible --> TRUE
 
Added:
>
>
Check if UE is negligible --> TRUE

Check if efficiency in away side and UE is compatible --> ON GOING

 

Purity

Added:
>
>
 The method has completely changed since Nicolas's thesis.
Changed:
<
<
Now we take into account the contamination coming from gamma decays (neutral meson)
>
>
Now we take into account the contamination coming from gamma decays (neutral meson) in the signal region.
 

MC

Line: 15 to 23
 

MC

Deleted:
<
<
 

Documents

Deleted:
<
<
 

Group Meetings :

Added:
>
>
April 29, 2015
 
Changed:
<
<

Meetings :

Old Stuffs :

PRESENTATION GROUPE

>
>
  31 oct 2014
Line: 36 to 39
 
Added:
>
>

Meetings :

Old Stuffs (Internship) :

PRESENTATION GROUPE

 28/07/2014

Line: 92 to 96
  14/04/2014
Changed:
<
<
 
To access notes about the QA download the document
>
>
  • IssuesInQAPeriods: Final recap document for QA ---> To access notes about the QA download the document
 
  • QAPeriodsMB.pdf: QA for Min Bias data set. Less plot due to less statistic
Line: 105 to 109
 3 periodes : LHC13d (p-Pb), LHC13e (p-Pb), LHC13f (Pb-p). LHC13f choisie comme période de référence
Changed:
<
<
=> Tendance en eta
>
>
=> Tendance en eta
 

Runs QA

Line: 137 to 137
  24/06/2014
Changed:
<
<
Weird distribution for UE => I check wether we obtain the same distribution of all types of trigger particle. I don't observe that in pp but I do in pPb for isolated particles.
>
>
Weird distribution for UE => I check wether we obtain the same distribution of all types of trigger particle. I don't observe that in pp but I do in pPb for isolated particles.
 
Line: 146 to 146
  23/06/2014
Changed:
<
<
Run the pp data on my code to crosscheck pp results : I don't have the same distributions => I do the x_E distribution for non isolated pi0 and compare to the UE distribution to see if we obtain the same shape and ratio as obtained in pp. It seems different, I have to check my code.
>
>
Run the pp data on my code to crosscheck pp results : I don't have the same distributions => I do the x_E distribution for non isolated pi0 and compare to the UE distribution to see if we obtain the same shape and ratio as obtained in pp. It seems different, I have to check my code.
 
Line: 180 to 179
  03/06/2014
Changed:
<
<
Bad formula for photons x_E distribution ----->
we have to re-implement the correct formula and obtain all the plot again
>
>
Bad formula for photons x_E distribution -----> we have to re-implement the correct formula and obtain all the plot again
 Stop the comparison with LHC11cd for now (report)

Line: 209 to 207
  23/05/2014
Changed:
<
<
Comportement chaotique en fonction des données LHC11 que j'utilise -->
le facteur 2 que l'on trouve entre pp et pPb n'est certainement pas du à la physique ! Les données sont celles données par Gustavo du 29 avril 2013 et du 18 mars 2014.
>
>
Comportement chaotique en fonction des données LHC11 que j'utilise --> le facteur 2 que l'on trouve entre pp et pPb n'est certainement pas du à la physique ! Les données sont celles données par Gustavo du 29 avril 2013 et du 18 mars 2014.
 
Line: 233 to 230
 19/05/2014

A cause des niveaux de trigger il faut faire attention lorsqu'on utilise les données des niveau L1 et L2 ensemble. On choisit de faire l'analyse avec les données L1(seuil de 12 GeV/c) pour le domaine en p_T^trigg de 12 à 25 GeV/c et avec les données L2 (seuil à 7 GeV/c) pour le range 10-11 GeV/c.

Changed:
<
<
La stat disponible dans L2 pour 10-11 GeV/c est 10 fois plus faible que pour L1 de 12 à 25 GeV/c ---->
Barre d'erreur plus importante.
>
>
La stat disponible dans L2 pour 10-11 GeV /c est 10 fois plus faible que pour L1 de 12 à 25 GeV /c ----> Barre d'erreur plus importante.
 Les valeurs de la pureté ont été calculées par Catherine.

Line: 244 to 241
  Les barres d'erreurs semblent très grandes (pas trop de stat 10 fois moins pour L2 10-12 que pour L1 12-25) mais lorsqu'on fait la propagation d'une soustraction on somme en quadrature les erreurs.
Changed:
<
<
Erreur dans la propagation pour les ratios GoodRuns/AllRuns et GoodRuns/BadRuns -->
problème réglé, nouveaux plots ici :
>
>
Erreur dans la propagation pour les ratios GoodRuns /AllRuns et GoodRuns /BadRuns --> problème réglé, nouveaux plots ici :
 
Line: 252 to 249
  15/05/2014
Changed:
<
<
Update of x_E distribution : I did a non weighted average of each bin in [12,25] GeV/c -->
it's not the proper way to do the analysis. One must scale the total distribution with the number of particles in 12-25 and not scale each bin distribution with number of particle in the bin. It doesn't change a lot but it could be interesting to do the comparison between the two methods. ---> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To do !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
Update of x_E distribution : I did a non weighted average of each bin in [12,25] GeV /c --> it's not the proper way to do the analysis. One must scale the total distribution with the number of particles in 12-25 and not scale each bin distribution with number of particle in the bin. It doesn't change a lot but it could be interesting to do the comparison between the two methods. ---> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To do !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  09/05/2014
Changed:
<
<
Check if the values for left and right side UE \Delta\Phi are OK ----->
There is no hole for left side as confirmed by the fit
>
>
Check if the values for left and right side UE \Delta\Phi are OK -----> There is no hole for left side as confirmed by the fit
 
Line: 267 to 264
 
  • compareUEFit09.pdf: Fit of the ratio between left and right side UE with one fixed parameter = 0.9
Changed:
<
<
Comparison between AllRuns data and AllGoodRuns data ----->
slight difference between the two datasets -> see if we choose to remove others bad runs when we go back to QA
>
>
Comparison between AllRuns data and AllGoodRuns data -----> slight difference between the two datasets -> see if we choose to remove others bad runs when we go back to QA
 
Line: 280 to 276
 
Deleted:
<
<
 30/04/2014
Changed:
<
<
Do the plots with merged data <=> LHC13d, e, f without identified bad runs from QA
>
>
Do the plots with merged data <=> LHC13d, e, f without identified bad runs from QA
 there is 14 bins in p_T^trigg [12,25]
Changed:
<
<
 
  • 3xE.pdf: three part of the equation for x_E distribution for isolated photon ---->
Check if our x_E distribution has sense and do the ratio over f(x_E^UE) to be sure that the UE is negligible for high x_E where we don't have information on it

  • CompareUELeftRight.pdf: UE right and left comparison du to weird value in analysis code ----> we want to be sure we can use this for now
>
>
  • 3xE.pdf: three part of the equation for x_E distribution for isolated photon ----> Check if our x_E distribution has sense and do the ratio over f(x_E^UE) to be sure that the UE is negligible for high x_E where we don't have information on it
 
Changed:
<
<
 
  • FitxE.pdf: fit the cluster and pi0 x_E distribution to compare with the value obtained by Nicolas --->
same order of magnitude
>
>
  • CompareUELeftRight.pdf: UE right and left comparison du to weird value in analysis code ----> we want to be sure we can use this for now
 
Changed:
<
<
 
  • xEPhoton.pdf: x_E distribution for isolated photon with 12 bins in p_T^trigg (means still fake errors for two bins) ---->
Maybe it will be interesting to search for a good binning (i.e minimise the error bars)
>
>
  • FitxE.pdf: fit the cluster and pi0 x_E distribution to compare with the value obtained by Nicolas ---> same order of magnitude
 
Added:
>
>
  • xEPhoton.pdf: x_E distribution for isolated photon with 12 bins in p_T^trigg (means still fake errors for two bins) ----> Maybe it will be interesting to search for a good binning (i.e minimise the error bars)
 
Changed:
<
<
When we look carefully at the x_E distribution (i.e TH2F in the plots analysis) we see that it would be great to perform the analysis from 10 Gev/c to 25 Gev/c ------>
we need L2 data
>
>
When we look carefully at the x_E distribution (i.e TH2F in the plots analysis) we see that it would be great to perform the analysis from 10 Gev/c to 25 Gev/c ------> we need L2 data
 PRELIMINARY plots
Changed:
<
<
 
  • 3xE1_25.pdf: the three part of the isolated photon x_E distribution formula p_T^trigg in [10,25] GeV/c ---->
fake value of the purity for the 2 first bins
>
>
  • 3xE1_25.pdf: the three part of the isolated photon x_E distribution formula p_T^trigg in [10,25] GeV /c ----> fake value of the purity for the 2 first bins
 
  • xEPhoton10_25.pdf: we clearly see that we reach the high x_E region with more statistic here ! See if always true with good values of the purity
Changed:
<
<
For both we have negative values for certain bins -> What do we do ? TMath::Abs() ?
>
>
For both we have negative values for certain bins -> What do we do ? TMath::Abs() ?
  23/04/2014
Changed:
<
<
Compare the three data periods ---->
we want to merge data
>
>
Compare the three data periods ----> we want to merge data
 Two different plots : one with 14 bins in p_T^trigg (still a fake error on two bins for purity), and one with 1 bin in p_T^trigg

Line: 334 to 325
  30/04/2014
Changed:
<
<
 
all the method are consistent => for now we can choose one method and choose further
>
>
  • xE12BinsComparePurityMethod.pdf: Comparison of x_E for isolated photon for different purity estimation method -----> all the method are consistent => for now we can choose one method and choose further
  23/04/2014

  • ComparePurity.pdf: compare the value of the purity for different value of p_T^trigg bins
Changed:
<
<
 
better to bin but still coherent if we choose a mean value for purity
>
>
  • binOverConstantPurity.pdf: comparison of x_E for isolated photon for bin purity vs contant purity ----> better to bin but still coherent if we choose a mean value for purity
 

DOCUMENTS RECAPITULATIFS

Line: 442 to 424
 
META FILEATTACHMENT attachment="NoteForJulien.pdf" attr="h" comment="" date="1406820145" name="NoteForJulien.pdf" path="NoteForJulien.pdf" size="506720" user="asvauthi" version="1"
META FILEATTACHMENT attachment="Presentation_27_oct_2014.pdf" attr="h" comment="" date="1414407076" name="Presentation_27_oct_2014.pdf" path="Presentation_27_oct_2014.pdf" size="235682" user="asvauthi" version="2"
META FILEATTACHMENT attachment="Presentation_30_oct_2014.pdf" attr="h" comment="" date="1414758041" name="Presentation_30_oct_2014.pdf" path="Presentation_30_oct_2014.pdf" size="172666" user="asvauthi" version="2"
Added:
>
>
META FILEATTACHMENT attachment="GroupeMeetingApril29_2015.pdf" attr="h" comment="Meeting group April 29, 2015. Update on Efficiency for xE analysis" date="1430290672" name="GroupeMeetingApril29_2015.pdf" path="GroupeMeetingApril29_2015.pdf" size="262229" user="asvauthi" version="1"
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright &© 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback