> Ciao Alessio, > > On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Alessio Sarti wrote: > > > Hi all, > > Ive performed the new checks on KL that were discussed in the last > > meeting. > > 1) I've added in anaRecoil two histograms filled by default. > > They contain the information on the energy of TRUE KL. > > Here's the result for generic B0 2000: > > (as it comes... next time I'll promise to use log scale) > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~asarti/recoil/devel/KLstu/energyKL.eps > what are you plotting here? The true KL energy (for true KL). I'm looping against neutral candidates (MC). If I find a true KL (idMc == 130) I'm getting the fourmomentum and then plotting the energy. I'm not applying constraint to the MC particle to be reconstructed in the EMC: I'll add that constraint and redo the plots (btw: I do not have the information in the MC block... how can I impose that constraint on true KL???). > You should have run over all photon candidates, requested to be > reconstructed in the EMC (this is what we are studying) and plot the ecal > energy. How can there be seros in your plot? > No constraint on EMC recostruction is applyed. So I need to plot the ecalGam energy? But how can I do that selecting true KL if the MC association is broken? I can: a) Plot the true energy for true KL b) Plot reco/ecal energy for KL that have the highest likelihood to be a kaon I cannot plot the ecal energy for true KL because I do not know how to match them. > > > > (with a cut on energy = 0) > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~asarti/recoil/devel/KLstu/energyKLnz.eps > > > Do you understand the bump at 2.5 GeV? It is completely irrealistic, how > can a D meson with 3 GeV of energy release 2.5 of them in a Kl so often?!? > > Once you redo the plots, can you also do the plot for likelihhod>0 (only > true kls, though) I do not understand this: I'm plotting the TRUE energy for TRUE KL. Why do I need the likelihood selection? If I ask for true KL what can be improved by the likelihood selection? Should I select 'TRUE' KL on a likelihood basis and that's it? Otherwise I do not understand how to plot reco/ecal quantities for TRUE KL.... > > > 2) Study of true and fake Klongs: > > Here are the results.. > > > > This is (just for 2002 generic MC SP4 B0) energy of all Klongs selected > > with the makimum likelihood method with, superimposed, the same spectrum > > JUST for true Klongs. Discrepancies are not large (are expected?). > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~asarti/recoil/devel/KLstu/all_vs_true-KL.eps I've redone the plot (the previous one had a bug) http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~asarti/recoil/devel/KLstu/energy_best_KL_sup.eps All that study is made unusable by the fact that I was using MC association for KL (it is known that doesn't works but I forgot it..) > > > I am surprised that the true KL are so many, you are telling us, that > almost all likelihood>0 candidates in MC are true KL!. if this were true > we should just call this events depleted!!!! Are you sure about this?!? > are the two histograms normalized to same lumi? > > > The data-MC comparisons are coming separately for true and fake Klongs.... > > I needed to rerun the generic in order to have the index of Klongs > > available and jobs are still running: tomorrow I'll post the plots. I do > > not know if Urs want to start the reprocessing with the smearing in the > > meanwhile..... > > I don;t understand how can you make a data-MC comaprison for true KL!! I can't. That study is going to be dropped. I remember someone asking for data-MC comparison for true and fake KL but I realize now that can't be done on MC index basis (the only thing that can be done is making data-MC comparisons for those events that have a likelihood < 0.....: can that be useful?) > We > do not need that, but what escapes me is how could you do the previous > plots if you do not have the mc truth for KL in generic, this is what you > should have used, I thought. > > > > 3) Urs(all)I'm proposing to add in anaQa the following: > > > //Correction applied to True Klongs. > > if( idGam[i] == 130 ){ > > energyGam[i] *= (0.274351/0.225545); > > } > > > > in the loop that makes the four momentum of neutral particles. > > That should be added before ANY use of energyGam[i] variable. > > Let me know if you want me to commit that piece of code in recoilNtp.cc in > > such a way that Urs has a clear example of what I'm proposing before > > translating it to anaQa. > > I think the first plots (the mc truth ones) need to be remade, I cannot > believe them, but if you are really positive about the plot that says that > basically all candidates we select with like>0 are true Kl, that plot is using the information on generic that comes from the MC matching association: if the information is not reliable the plot cannot be trusted. I'm going to redo the plot directly on true (not reconstructed) KL were I do not need to use the associator and see if the statement is still valid. > then I would > also suggest Urs runs with the data-MC comparison you showed the other day > ciao > ric >