1 / 20

Status of the Bunch length measurement with the luminous region Z distribution

Status of the Bunch length measurement with the luminous region Z distribution. Preliminary results : extraction of both HER and LER bunch length with Simultaneous fit of 2 distribs taken at RF voltage = 3.2 and 3.8 MV Simultaneous fit of 6 distributions taken at different currents

loring
Download Presentation

Status of the Bunch length measurement with the luminous region Z distribution

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Status of the Bunch length measurement with the luminous region Z distribution • Preliminary results : • extraction of both HER and LER bunch length with • Simultaneous fit of 2 distribs taken at RF voltage = 3.2 and 3.8 MV • Simultaneous fit of 6 distributions taken at different currents • (I_LER [0.7: 2.4] A; I_HER  [1.05: 1.5] A) • HER bunch length assumed constant as I and RF voltage vary • LER bunch length dependence w.r.t I and RF voltage known and • used as a constraint in the fit. • Performed both with the online and offline data • Open questions : • discrepancies between online and offline results • systematics B. VIAUD, C. O’Grady

  2. Measurement with 2 samples taken at RF voltage = 3.2 and 3.8 MV Data type sLERsHERSz2c2 #events (3.2) #events (3.8) online 12.42±0.20 12.05±0.20 299 8.6 0.56M 1.50M offline 14.12±0.15 10.60±0.15 311 11.3 0.53M 3.30M if we subtract the bunch number dependent Z variation offline 13.43±0.15 11.22±0.15 306 11.8 • => Important variation between on- and offline. Why ? • Large correlation between sLER and sHER ( > 99%) • too large to find precisely the individual values ? • MC-TOYs have the same correlation and work correctly. • effect of fitting a PDF which doesn’t describe the data properly ? • need more MC-TOY tests to check that. • several discrepancies observed between on- and offline : • RMS of both RF distributions 0.1 mm larger in offline data • An offset of ~1mm in Z • => Origin ? Different frames ? Something in the slow Z movement subtraction ? • Cuts ? => We’ll try the offline analysis with exactly the cut than online. B. VIAUD, C. O’Grady

  3. Measurement with long coast data Data type sLERsHERSz2c2 #events online 5.6±1.4 14.7±0.6 247 1.5 140k offline 6.4±3.3 14.6±1.6 254 1.2 35k • Not enough stat. + correlations ? B. VIAUD, C. O’Grady

  4. Z variation as a function of the bunch number Slow Z movement not subtracted Slow Z movement subtracted <Z> [mm] B. VIAUD, C. O’Grady Mini-trains ? Bunch number

  5. Z variation as a function of the bunch numberhigh vs. low I High I Low I <Z> [mm] B. VIAUD, C. O’Grady Bunch number

  6. Z-RMS variation as a function of the bunch number Z-RMS [mm] B. VIAUD, C. O’Grady 0 Bunch number 3492

  7. Systematic uncertainties • Varying the parameters fixed in the fit within their • known errors and re-compute the results. • How to evaluate the uncertainty due to the fact the PDF • used in the fit doesn’t describe properly the data ? • try several PDFs (asymmetric bunches) ? • let Beta*_y float ? • use TOYs to produce distorded distributions compared to • the nominal PDF ? • ? B. VIAUD, C. O’Grady

  8. New Since Last Collab Mtg

  9. New Offline-Style Analysis Necessary for analyzing MC/data with same code. New (simple) cuts: • ntracks==2 • Chi2(vertex)<3 • Mass(2track)>9.5GeV • E(charged showers)<3GeV • 0.7<tan(lambda1)<2.5 Note that all our units are mm (like PEP). Also, subtract Z motion of beamspot more trivially now (new value every 10 minutes).

  10. Check we see the same effect in data (from late July 2005) • => Similar effect. Similar values of the fitted parameters New Offline Analysis Code c2 ~10 c2 ~3 Z [mm] Z [mm]

  11. Monte Carlo with a gaussian Z distribution • Z-distribution is generated in the mu-pair MC as a gaussian with • <Z>=0 mm and s= 8.5 mm • => No obvious effect due to the • reconstruction / selection c2 ~1.1 Z [mm]

  12. Z vertex resolution from MC • 30um resolution is very small on the scale we are looking, so feels difficult for it to be a resolution effect. Z Reconstructed – Z True (mm)

  13. Z-distribution/bunch length measurement as a function of bunch current • Data/theory discrepancy could be due to Beam-Beam effect proportional to the bunch current • => Compare Z-distribution at high and low current • Used data taken on July the 31st and July the 9th • LER: 2.4 A -> ~ 0.7 A • HER: 1.5 A -> ~1050 A • Selected each time the first and last runs of the period • during which the currents drop.

  14. Standard fit (waists Z-position or b*(y) not allowed to float ) • No obvious difference at this statistics. When waists Z-position or b*(y) are allowed to float : Chi2 ~ 1, fitted values of Zwaist andb*(y) similar to those obtained with the usual sample. 31st of July Low current High current c2 ~1.3 c2 ~1.4 RMS=7.0 mm RMS=7.14 mm Z [mm] Z [mm]

  15. Standard fit (waists Z-position or b*(y) not allowed to float ) • No obvious difference at this statistics. When waists Z-position or b*(y) are allowed to float : Chi2 reduced, fitted values of Zwaist andb*(y) ~ consistent with those we usually see. 9th of July High current Low current Low current High current c2 ~0.8 c2 ~1.6 c2 ~1.3 c2 ~1.4 RMS=7.01 mm RMS=7.2 mm RMS=7.0 mm RMS=7.14 mm Z [mm] Z [mm]

  16. Conclusions • No obvious z-distribution distortion observed when analysis run on monte-carlo • With available statistics, no obvious beam-beam effects in high/low beam-current runs.

  17. How do we proceed? • Analyze monte-carlo with correct hourglass shape (tried once, but hourglass in monte-carlo was not correct we believe). Unlikely cause, IMHO. • Backgrounds (tau, 2-photon)? Unlikely cause, IMHO. • Effect of parasitic crossings (now have bunch number in ntuples … so should be easy). Unlikely cause, IWHO. • Think about asymmetric bunches more • Perhaps help Ilya/Witold study at simulation? • Some machine studies?

  18. Fit the following PDFon the luminous region Z distribution: Reminder I Number of particles per bunch, Zc : Z where the bunchs meet Allowed to float

  19. Reminder II • The theoretical distribution cannot describe the shape of the data. • Trying to understand this before proceeding with bunch length measurement!! s ~ 7.25 mm c2 ~13 Z [mm]

  20. Reminder III • Better data/theory agreement if the waists Z-position or b*(y) are allowed to float in the fit • Waists Z positions / b*(y) values seem unlikely ! • Are they real ? Which other effect could simulate this lack of focalisation ?? c2 ~2.2 c2 ~2.4 Z [mm] Z [mm]

More Related