1 combination of h1 and zeus dis e ± p inclusive cross sections outline introduction combination...
Post on 22-Dec-2015
218 views
TRANSCRIPT
1
Combination of H1 and ZEUS DIS e±p inclusive cross sections
Outline•Introduction•Combination method•Results•Checks
H1-ZEUS working group
A. Cooper-Sarkar, C.Gwenlan, K. Nagano, J. Ferrando, Y. Ri, S. U. Noor, A.F. Zarnecky, E.T,J. Feltesse, S. Glazov, M. Klein, V. Shekelian, Z. Zhang,E. Rizvi, U. Martyn
E. Tassi - Zeus Monday mtg August,6 2007
http://www-zeus.desy.de/~tassi/ZEUS_ONLY/combineLP07/main.html
2
Electroweak Neutral currents at HERAH1prelim-06-142/ZEUS-prel-06-022
Interference structure function xF3(γZ):
order) (Leading )2(3
)2(2~~
3
32
3
vvZ
Zee
Ze
dux
xF
xFkavkxFaY
Y
- First combined H1-ZEUS SF result
- Improved xF3(γZ) determination
- Simple weighted average using the
total uncertainties (w/o correlations)
3
Parity violating cross section
asymmetries:
x) (large /4
/1
)()(
)()(2
2
2
vv
vv
Z
eLR
LR
LR
ud
udkA
F
Fka
PP
PP
PPA
Electroweak Neutral currents at HERAH1prelim-06-142/ZEUS-prel-06-022
- again simple data averaging method…
4
Aim of the analysis
Go a step forward: combine the HERA I NC and CC ep inclusive cross sections including full correlations.
- Simplicity → provide a single set of “HERA” inclusive cross sections measurements blessed by the experiments
- Cross Calibration → Reduction of syst. unc. as a result of averaging (S. Glazov - DIS05 and HERA-LHC WS)
- Cross Check → also as a result of the studies in this WG, the 96-97 H1 low-Q2 data had to be scaled up by 3.4% (official)
Analysis focus on the combination method and the treatment of thesystematic uncert. in data combination (no tables will be provided).
Would like to present these results to LP07 → Preliminary Status
5
Main technical issues addressed
- consistency of input data → generally good (but see previous slide)
- Treatment of systematic errors additive or multiplicative
- x-Q2 common grid → H1 x and ZEUS Q2 (basically)
- assumptions on correlations between data sets and H1 and ZEUS (mostly uncorrelated but theory links – QED and γp)
- treatment of 820 GeV and 920 GeV (see later)
- some of the average assumptions cause extra uncertainties at the few % level (with few exceptions) – added to the averaged data points
6
Cross section averaging procedure and definition(s)
Ke
j
ej
eji
ei
eii
ei rsm
1
N
i
Ke
j
eje
i
Ke
j
ej
ejii
ei
e r
rm
r1 1
2
2
12 }){},({
exp2
1
2
N
e
e
eL
Data model (assume first only additive systematics):
Likelihood:
With:
2
)1,0(~,
expby bin in unc. syst. correlated
expby bin iny uncertaint lstatistica
bin in section cross true
expby bin in section cross measured
Nrs
ei
ei
i
eim
ji
eji
ei
ei
ei
Averaging procedure based on the Least Squares method
7
Minimization
From the minimization one gets for the averaged (true) cross sections:
222BA
2
Ni
rrmm
Bi
Ai
K
j
Bj
Bji
K
j
Aj
AjiB
i
Bi
Ai
Ai
i
BA
,...,1 11
22
1122
Remember that ri ~ Norm(0,1)
8
Multiplicative vs additive syst. uncert.Imagine that in addition to the additive syst. β we have a multiplicative systematic(e.g. lumi norm. unc.) α=1±ε…
N
i
Ke
j
eje
i
ei
Ke
j
ej
ejii
e r
mr
r1
2
2
1
2
2
12 )1(}){},({
In order not to spoil the linearity of the approach an iterative procedureis adopted where initially the mult. syst. is treated as the other ones butin each iteration the (β=α) and σ are rescaled by μi(n)/mi .
Few iterations are sufficient for the fit to converge. The programremains extremely fast while avoiding possible biases.
9
Data sets and treatment
- All HERA I cross sections: NC and CC e±p - 1.5 < Q2 <30000 GeV2 → ~230 pb-1
- averages cross sections determined in a simultaneous fit of these data.
- prior to combination the H1 and ZEUS measurements are transformed to a common grid of x-Q2 points
- treatment of the 820 GeV and 920 GeV data sets In this analysis and just for illustration have decide to move all data points to 920 GeV – In the future may/will not correct points at high-y (y>0.35) in order to reduce model dependence (FL):
),(),(
),(),( 2
2
22 Qx
Qx
QxQx meas
epthep
gridgridthep
gridgridmeasep
),(),(
),(),( 2820
2820
29202920 Qx
Qx
QxQx ep
ep
epep
for CC, additive for NC(see draft)
10
X-Q2 common grid
The grid points are chosen such that - interpolation corrections are small- no two separate measurements interpolate to common grid point
- 38x25 points → Q2 ~ ZEUS → x ~ H1 (4 points per decade)
Detailed list in the analysis web page
11
Results
12
Fit results: and pulls
2599/510/2 ndf
CC e+p
NC e-p
CC e-p
NC e+p
μ=-0.05σ=1.7
μ=0.1σ=0.8
μ=0.01σ=0.7
μ=-0.09σ=1.4
13
Fit Results : Syst. shifts Name Syst Unc.
1 zlumi1_zncepl 0.0554 0.5887 2 h2_Ee_Spacal 0.6568 0.3314 3 h3_Ee_Lar_00 -0.3645 0.4448 4 h4_ThetaE_spacal -0.7437 0.6556 5 h5_ThetaE_94-97 -0.0655 0.7799 6 h6_ThetaE_00 -0.4051 0.5290 7 h7_H_Scale_Spacal 0.4592 0.4755 8 h8_H_Scale_Lar -0.9265 0.5351 9 h9_Noise_Hcal -0.5037 0.364510 h10_GP_BG_Spacal -0.5141 0.817911 h11_GP_BG_LAr 0.9073 0.851012 h12_BG_CC_94-97 0.3389 0.787113 h13_BG_CC_98-00 -0.7856 0.884614 h14_ChargeAsym 0.0262 0.999315 hllumi1_SPACAL_bulk 1.5543 0.558816 hllumi2_SPACAL_MB 0.8375 0.598417 h1lumi3_LAr_94-97_e+p -1.0706 0.621118 h1lumi4_LAr_e-p -0.0708 0.777819 h1lumi5_LAr_2000 -0.7462 0.5982
20 zd1_e_eff 0.4572 0.748621 zd2_e_theta_a 0.1576 0.679722 zd3_e_theta_b -0.3849 0.774623 zd4_e_escale 0.8342 0.507924 zd5_had1 0.3157 0.590625 zd6_had2 0.0581 0.649626 zd7_had3 -0.7649 0.741327 zd8_had_flow 0.6947 0.661928 zd9_bg -0.2358 0.417529 zd10_had_flow_b 0.0730 0.237530 zd11 -0.4055 0.617431 z1nce-_e_scale 0.1777 0.938332 z2nce-_bg -0.4073 0.917833 z3nce-_eff1 -0.1819 0.912034 z4nce-_eff2 0.5536 0.554435 z5nce-_vtx -0.5180 0.926236 z6nce- 0.1218 0.413837 z1cce- 0.0296 0.835038 z2cce- -0.0152 0.868039 zlumi2_zccem 0.0708 0.777840 zd5nc00 0.1386 0.984341 zd7nc00 0.1566 0.209342 zd8nc00 0.5163 0.928043 zluminc00 -0.4854 0.3837
14
CC e-p
Preliminary request
15
CC e-p
16
CC e+p
Preliminary request
17
CC e+p
18
NC e-p
Preliminary request
19
NC e+p
Preliminary request
20
NC e+p
Preliminary request
21
NC e+p: two low-Q2 bins
22
NC e+p: two high-Q2 bins
23
NC e+p
Preliminary request
24
NC e+p
Preliminary request
25
Systematic Checks
26
CME corrections: FL =0
To test model (FL) dependenceat high-y we have repeated thecombination (with FL=0)
Almost negligible (but up to 4-5% at high-y)
(Default/NoFL -1)x1000
27
Correlation between Experiments
To quantify them is a highly non trivial problem
Tried to evaluate them by identifyinga list of possible common sources (γp back, lumi,CAL E scales, θe, etc),assume 100% correlation, and compare the new averages with uncorrelated ones
Mostly negligible (but up to 2-3%in particular regions of the phase space)
(Uncorrelated/Largest change -1)x1000
28
Multiplicative vs Additive
Comparison of the averaged crosssections obtained assuming allsyst unc. as multiplicative in naturew.r.t. to a combination were only normalizations were treated ad multiplicative
Mostly negligible (but strangelylarge in a few high-x high-Q2 points)
(Uncorrelated/Largest change -1)x1000
29
Summary
• Thinking the results are interesting we would
like, if approved by collaborations, to present the results to LP07 → feedback wider circle…
• Draft being completed…• E. Rizvi will present these results to H1
tomorrow
For additional information visit analysis web page:http://www-zeus.desy.de/~tassi/ZEUS_ONLY/combineLP07/main.html
30
Backup Slides
31
Minimization
N
i
K
k
N
iB
BiB
i
BjiB
jBk
N
iiBi
Bki
Bji
iBi
Bji
N
i
K
k
N
iA
AiA
i
AjiA
jAk
N
iiAi
Aki
Aji
iAi
Aji
Bi
Bi
Ai
Ai
K
j
Bj
Bji
K
j
Aj
AjiB
iAi
i
A
A
BA
Kjmrr
Kjmrr
Nimm
rr
1 1 1222
1 1 1222
2211
22
,...,1
,...,1
,...,1 11
From the minimization one gets the following system:
That can be re-written in matrix form
222BA
2
32
BXA
BK
B
AK
AN
B
A
r
r
r
r
X
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
1
N
i
BiB
i
BiK
N
i
BiB
i
Bi
N
i
AiA
i
AiK
N
i
AiA
i
Ai
BN
BN
AN
AN
B
B
A
A
m
m
m
m
mm
mm
B
B
A
12
12
1
12
12
1
22
2
1
12
1
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ED
CAA
d
for
)(
1
)(
1for 0
)()(22
,, ji
jiAA
Bi
Ai
jid
ji
K,..,1 and ,...,1for )(
,..,1 and ,...,1 for )(
)()(
B2
2
,,
AABj
Bij
AAj
Aij
jijiN
KKiNj
KiNj
DA
K,..,1,for )(
,..,1,for )(
)()(
B
N
1k2
Bjk
,
N
1k2
Ajk
,
,,
AABk
Bik
ji
AAk
Aik
ji
jijNiN
KKji
KjiEA
Minimization2
33
Fitted cross sects and r parameters
ED
CAA
d
Basic Idea: BXA ** BXA
Ni
rrmm
Bi
Ai
K
j
Bj
Bji
K
j
Aj
AjiB
i
Bi
Ai
Ai
i
BA
,...,1 11
22
1122
*
***
0 E
CAA
d
We can now determine the parameters
*
*
*
**
0 s
md
B
B
rE
CA *1*sBEr
Once the are known we can easily determine the ir i
ir
34
X = 0.02
35
36
Lumi unc.
Use of the correct underlying model for each error contribution is important → Improper treatment may lead to strong biases (G. D’agostini (CELLO 87) – Peelle’s Pertinent Puzzle (R. Peelle 87)…)
All Add.
Norms Mult.
37
15 hllumi1_SPACAL_bulk 0.4054 0.570016 hllumi2_SPACAL_MB -0.0838 0.603517 h1lumi3_LAr_94-97_e+p -2.3520 0.613918 h1lumi4_LAr_e-p -0.6815 0.773819 h1lumi5_LAr_2000 -2.1614 0.59151 zlumi1_zncepl -0.9276 0.590139 zlumi2_zccem -0.7298 0.774043 zluminc00 -1.5020 0.379830 zd11 -0.1974 0.6159
15 hllumi1_SPACAL_bulk 1.5377 0.562816 hllumi2_SPACAL_MB 0.8464 0.600117 h1lumi3_LAr_94-97_e+p -1.0869 0.622718 h1lumi4_LAr_e-p -0.0808 0.778019 h1lumi5_LAr_2000 -0.7334 0.60021 zlumi1_zncepl 0.0277 0.591939 zlumi2_zccem 0.0809 0.777943 zluminc00 -0.5196 0.385930 zd11 -0.3856 0.6204