Project

General

Profile

Analysis Questions » History » Version 16

Matthew Toups, 01/03/2018 09:23 PM

1 1 Matthew Toups
h1. Analysis Questions
2 1 Matthew Toups
3 6 Matthew Toups
h2. GENIE
4 1 Matthew Toups
5 8 Matthew Toups
h3. [[Energy, Momentum Conservation|Energy & Momentum Conservation]]
6 3 Matthew Toups
7 4 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
8 4 Matthew Toups
9 4 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
10 4 Matthew Toups
11 4 Matthew Toups
* At the interaction vertex, is momentum conserved?  If not, why not?  Is it because of a fake particle in the event?   How are we handling this strictly from a kinematics point of view (not a model question)?   Prove we handle missing energy properly when we move to different frames.    If this is not handled right it will really screw up a lot of analyses, especially xsec analyses.
12 4 Matthew Toups
13 5 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
14 4 Matthew Toups
15 4 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
16 1 Matthew Toups
17 5 Matthew Toups
h3. Boosting
18 1 Matthew Toups
19 5 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
20 1 Matthew Toups
21 5 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
22 1 Matthew Toups
23 5 Matthew Toups
* Are particles boosted correctly?   I have been on experiments that did not have the correct boosts.   So check it.
24 1 Matthew Toups
25 5 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
26 1 Matthew Toups
27 5 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
28 1 Matthew Toups
29 5 Matthew Toups
h3. Protons boosting in MEC interaction
30 1 Matthew Toups
31 5 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
32 1 Matthew Toups
33 5 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
34 1 Matthew Toups
35 5 Matthew Toups
* Look at the protons produced in the MEC interaction – are these protons being boosted properly?
36 1 Matthew Toups
37 5 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
38 1 Matthew Toups
39 5 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
40 1 Matthew Toups
41 9 Matthew Toups
h3. [[Neutron multiplicity|Neutron multiplicity]]
42 1 Matthew Toups
43 5 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
44 1 Matthew Toups
45 5 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
46 1 Matthew Toups
47 5 Matthew Toups
* Check the number of neutrons coming out.   Tim has said he has seen an unphysical number.    What does that mean?  Prove you don’t have a mistake.
48 1 Matthew Toups
49 5 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
50 1 Matthew Toups
51 5 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
52 1 Matthew Toups
53 5 Matthew Toups
h2. Beam flux
54 1 Matthew Toups
55 5 Matthew Toups
h3. Beam rotation, width, parallax
56 1 Matthew Toups
57 5 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
58 1 Matthew Toups
59 5 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
60 5 Matthew Toups
61 5 Matthew Toups
* The solid angle of the detector is 5 mrads.    Do we correct for this rotation in the simulation in order to match data?   In fact, we need to think about beam width and parallax, because a neutrino with a 400 m travel distance actually has an opening angle of 6.25 mrads.    Note that this will be flavor dependent.  A consequence of not getting this right is that your muon angle distribution in the xsecs will be wrong.   It also affects any analysis looking for transverse momentum or 
62 5 Matthew Toups
63 5 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
64 5 Matthew Toups
65 5 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
66 5 Matthew Toups
67 5 Matthew Toups
h2. Geant4
68 5 Matthew Toups
69 5 Matthew Toups
h3. dE/dx
70 5 Matthew Toups
71 5 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
72 5 Matthew Toups
73 5 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
74 5 Matthew Toups
75 5 Matthew Toups
* Check the dE/dx of the particles coming out against SRIM or any other data base.   Prove it makes sense.   I think it won’t because…
76 5 Matthew Toups
77 5 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
78 5 Matthew Toups
79 5 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
80 5 Matthew Toups
81 11 Matthew Toups
h3. [[Delta production threshold|Delta production threshold]]
82 5 Matthew Toups
83 5 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
84 5 Matthew Toups
85 5 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
86 5 Matthew Toups
87 5 Matthew Toups
*  The deltas probably have too high of a threshold, since I can pick out data compared to MC in the DL LEE images from the amount of delta sparkle.   Check this.    This affects the multiple scattering energy measurement, all EM energy measurements, including the michels and also may explain the PIDA problem (and why truncated dQ/dx works better).
88 5 Matthew Toups
89 5 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
90 5 Matthew Toups
91 5 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
92 5 Matthew Toups
93 5 Matthew Toups
h3. Muon polarization and Michel spectrum
94 5 Matthew Toups
95 5 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
96 5 Matthew Toups
97 5 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
98 5 Matthew Toups
99 5 Matthew Toups
* The Michel energy and angle spectrum is surely wrong, since the MC does not include polarization.   Explain to me why this doesn’t matter to your analysis.
100 5 Matthew Toups
101 5 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
102 5 Matthew Toups
103 5 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
104 5 Matthew Toups
105 5 Matthew Toups
h3. Muon polarization and capture cross section
106 5 Matthew Toups
107 5 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
108 5 Matthew Toups
109 5 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
110 5 Matthew Toups
111 5 Matthew Toups
* Does muon polarization affect the capture cross section?  (I don’t know the answer to this – I am just guessing that since capture is a weak process, it will).
112 5 Matthew Toups
113 5 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
114 5 Matthew Toups
115 5 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
116 5 Matthew Toups
117 5 Matthew Toups
h3. Stopped pi+ Bragg peak
118 5 Matthew Toups
119 5 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
120 5 Matthew Toups
121 5 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
122 5 Matthew Toups
123 5 Matthew Toups
* Are stopped pi+’s that decay making a Bragg peak in the simulation?  They should.
124 5 Matthew Toups
125 5 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
126 5 Matthew Toups
127 5 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
128 5 Matthew Toups
129 10 Matthew Toups
h3. [[Pi+ scattering cross section|Pi+ scattering cross section]]
130 5 Matthew Toups
131 5 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
132 5 Matthew Toups
133 5 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
134 5 Matthew Toups
135 5 Matthew Toups
* Use a particle gun to produce pi+’s and check the fraction of time they hard scatter given the energy.  Is it right?
136 5 Matthew Toups
137 5 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
138 5 Matthew Toups
139 5 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
140 5 Matthew Toups
141 5 Matthew Toups
h2. CCpi0 analysis
142 5 Matthew Toups
143 5 Matthew Toups
h3. Photon splitting/clustering
144 5 Matthew Toups
145 5 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
146 5 Matthew Toups
147 5 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
148 5 Matthew Toups
149 5 Matthew Toups
* There is a claim that the case of 2 EM blobs near a 1mu1p always corresponds to a pi0, so we don’t need to worry about the mass peak.   Prove to me that a relatively high energy photon splitting into 2 blobs that do not cluster is rare.
150 5 Matthew Toups
151 5 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
152 5 Matthew Toups
153 5 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
154 5 Matthew Toups
155 5 Matthew Toups
h3. Cosmic pi0 background
156 5 Matthew Toups
157 5 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
158 5 Matthew Toups
159 5 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
160 5 Matthew Toups
161 5 Matthew Toups
* How often do you get a pi0 from cosmic right on top of your CCQE event?    According to Kazu, who has done a lot of scanning, about 1 in 3 BNBEXT has a pi0.   There are so many more cosmics and so many more CCQE than CCpi0 that it seems very likely there will be some.  If that isn’t right, please explain.
162 5 Matthew Toups
163 5 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
164 5 Matthew Toups
165 5 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
166 5 Matthew Toups
167 5 Matthew Toups
h3. pi+/pi0 charge exchange
168 5 Matthew Toups
169 5 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
170 5 Matthew Toups
171 5 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
172 5 Matthew Toups
173 5 Matthew Toups
* Check the rate of pi+/pi0 charge exchange – is it right?   Is your CCpi0 analysis taking charge exchange into account properly?
174 5 Matthew Toups
175 5 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
176 5 Matthew Toups
177 5 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
178 5 Matthew Toups
179 13 Matthew Toups
h3. e+/e- conversion pair energies
180 5 Matthew Toups
181 5 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
182 5 Matthew Toups
183 5 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
184 5 Matthew Toups
185 5 Matthew Toups
* Check the energies of the e+e- conversion pair.   Does the ratio in the simulation make sense?
186 5 Matthew Toups
187 13 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by David C.): DocDB-12677, slide 4
188 5 Matthew Toups
189 5 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
190 5 Matthew Toups
191 5 Matthew Toups
h3. pi0 photons
192 5 Matthew Toups
193 5 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
194 5 Matthew Toups
195 5 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
196 5 Matthew Toups
197 5 Matthew Toups
* Check the energies of the two pi0 photons at truth level.   Does the ratio make sense?
198 5 Matthew Toups
199 5 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
200 5 Matthew Toups
201 5 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
202 5 Matthew Toups
203 5 Matthew Toups
h3. Hadronic invariant mass
204 5 Matthew Toups
205 5 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
206 5 Matthew Toups
207 5 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
208 5 Matthew Toups
209 5 Matthew Toups
* Check the invariant mass of the outgoing proton and pion in the resonant decays.   Does it make sense?   Yes, it will have smearing.   Do a run with no Fermi motion as a cross check.
210 5 Matthew Toups
211 5 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
212 5 Matthew Toups
213 5 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
214 5 Matthew Toups
215 15 Matthew Toups
h2. CPM analysis
216 15 Matthew Toups
217 15 Matthew Toups
h3. Flash-matching affecting efficiency
218 15 Matthew Toups
219 15 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
220 15 Matthew Toups
221 15 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
222 15 Matthew Toups
223 15 Matthew Toups
* How does the flash-match requirements affect the efficiency, looked as a function of number of tracks?
224 15 Matthew Toups
225 15 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
226 15 Matthew Toups
227 15 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
228 15 Matthew Toups
229 15 Matthew Toups
h3. Vertex-finding efficiency versus number of tracks
230 15 Matthew Toups
 
231 15 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
232 15 Matthew Toups
233 15 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
234 15 Matthew Toups
235 15 Matthew Toups
* How does vertex-finding efficiency vary with number of tracks?
236 15 Matthew Toups
237 15 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
238 15 Matthew Toups
239 15 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
240 15 Matthew Toups
241 15 Matthew Toups
h3. Vertex-finding efficiency versus other vertex activity
242 15 Matthew Toups
 
243 15 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
244 15 Matthew Toups
245 15 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
246 15 Matthew Toups
247 15 Matthew Toups
* How does vertex finding efficiency vary with additional vertex activity other than tracks?
248 15 Matthew Toups
249 15 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
250 15 Matthew Toups
251 15 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
252 15 Matthew Toups
 
253 15 Matthew Toups
h3. Track reconstruction efficiency versus number of tracks
254 15 Matthew Toups
255 15 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
256 15 Matthew Toups
257 15 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
258 15 Matthew Toups
259 15 Matthew Toups
* How does the number of reconstructable tracks vary with the number of tracks (is there confusion between tracks that causes a loss of efficiency?)
260 15 Matthew Toups
261 15 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
262 15 Matthew Toups
263 15 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
264 15 Matthew Toups
265 16 Matthew Toups
h3. Track reconstruction efficiency versus vertex activity other than tracks
266 15 Matthew Toups
267 15 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
268 15 Matthew Toups
269 15 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
270 15 Matthew Toups
271 15 Matthew Toups
* How does the number of reconstructable tracks vary with vertex activity?
272 15 Matthew Toups
273 15 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
274 15 Matthew Toups
275 15 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
276 15 Matthew Toups
277 16 Matthew Toups
h3. Track-vertex association versus number of tracks
278 15 Matthew Toups
279 15 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
280 15 Matthew Toups
281 15 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
282 15 Matthew Toups
283 15 Matthew Toups
* I believe that tracks are associated with a vertex if they have some distance of closest approach (5 cm?) – does the efficiency vary a lot when this cutis slightly changed?    This questions must be number-of-track dependent.
284 15 Matthew Toups
285 15 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
286 15 Matthew Toups
287 15 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
288 15 Matthew Toups
289 16 Matthew Toups
h3. Short track reconstruction as a function of angle
290 15 Matthew Toups
291 15 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
292 15 Matthew Toups
293 15 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
294 15 Matthew Toups
295 15 Matthew Toups
* How does efficiency for multiple short tracks to be resolved vary with the angle  from Z.  As tracks go to higher angle, is there hitsharing?  Do tracks remain distinct?
296 15 Matthew Toups
297 15 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
298 15 Matthew Toups
299 15 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
300 15 Matthew Toups
301 15 Matthew Toups
h3. Impact of reconstruction on dependence of multiplicity measurement on length cut
302 15 Matthew Toups
303 15 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
304 15 Matthew Toups
305 15 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
306 15 Matthew Toups
307 15 Matthew Toups
* The length cut is affecting the multiplicity measurement.   How does the reconstruction affect this?
308 15 Matthew Toups
309 15 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
310 15 Matthew Toups
311 15 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
312 15 Matthew Toups
313 5 Matthew Toups
h2. General analysis questions
314 5 Matthew Toups
315 14 Matthew Toups
h3. [[Beam windows in data and MC|Beam windows in data and MC]]
316 5 Matthew Toups
317 5 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
318 5 Matthew Toups
319 5 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
320 5 Matthew Toups
321 5 Matthew Toups
* Does every single xsec analysis use the right beam windows for data and MC?  Are you aware of the window-length difference when doing the BNBEXT subtraction?    Can you prove this is right for every single xsec analysis by making a plot for each?
322 5 Matthew Toups
323 5 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
324 5 Matthew Toups
325 5 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
326 5 Matthew Toups
327 5 Matthew Toups
h3. POT counting for exclusive samples
328 5 Matthew Toups
329 5 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
330 5 Matthew Toups
331 5 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
332 5 Matthew Toups
333 5 Matthew Toups
* Many xsec analyses will need exclusive samples.  Is the POT counting for exclusive samples wrong?   Prove it is right.
334 5 Matthew Toups
335 5 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
336 5 Matthew Toups
337 5 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No
338 5 Matthew Toups
339 5 Matthew Toups
h3. MC efficiency estimates
340 5 Matthew Toups
341 5 Matthew Toups
* Asked by Janet
342 5 Matthew Toups
343 5 Matthew Toups
* Assigned to XXX
344 5 Matthew Toups
345 5 Matthew Toups
* Nearly all of the xsec analyses are making very tough cuts in order to get to a sample that is as pure as possible.   When you do this, the error on the efficiency goes way up.  How are you determining the error on your efficiency?   Why should I think this is right?  Prove to me it makes sense.
346 5 Matthew Toups
347 5 Matthew Toups
* Answer (by XXX): DocDB-XXXX
348 5 Matthew Toups
349 5 Matthew Toups
* Resolved: No