Difference between revisions of "02/16/16 Meeting Analysis Follow-Up"
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
= ''' Removing Thickest Foils ''' = | = ''' Removing Thickest Foils ''' = | ||
| − | Fits of Run II data, with thickest foils removed in sequence. Thickness data is from 1/22/16 and does not reflect newest FESEM thickness uncertainties presented 2/16/16. They, however, should not affect the fits dramatically. | + | Fits of Run II data, "dilution"-subtracted, energy cut from -0.5 to +2 sigma, with thickest foils removed in sequence. Thickness data is from 1/22/16 and does not reflect newest FESEM thickness uncertainties presented 2/16/16. They, however, should not affect the fits dramatically. |
Pade forms (0,1), red, former best fit; (2,0), blue, and (1,1), green are included. Note that from 2/16/16 presentation by Marty, the simulation-motivated best fit is the Pade (1,1), green on the plots, of the form | Pade forms (0,1), red, former best fit; (2,0), blue, and (1,1), green are included. Note that from 2/16/16 presentation by Marty, the simulation-motivated best fit is the Pade (1,1), green on the plots, of the form | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
A(t) = (A<sub>0</sub> + b * t) / (1 + c * t) | A(t) = (A<sub>0</sub> + b * t) / (1 + c * t) | ||
| − | [[file:Run2.allFoils.gif||500px|]] | + | [[file:Run2.allFoils.gif||500px|]] all foils |
| − | [[file:Run2.no_1000nmFoil.gif||500px|]] | + | [[file:Run2.no_1000nmFoil.gif||500px|]] no 1000 nm |
| − | [[file:Run2.no_1000_870nmFoil.gif||500px|]] | + | [[file:Run2.no_1000_870nmFoil.gif||500px|]] no 1000 and 870 nm |
| − | [[file:Run2.no_1000_870_750nmFoil.gif||500px|]] | + | [[file:Run2.no_1000_870_750nmFoil.gif||500px|]] no 1000, 870, 750 nm |
| − | [[file:Run2.no_1000_870_750_625nmFoil.gif||500px|]] | + | [[file:Run2.no_1000_870_750_625nmFoil.gif||500px|]] no 1000, 870, 750, 625 nm |
| − | [[file:Run2.no_1000_870_750_625_500nmFoil.gif||500px|]] | + | [[file:Run2.no_1000_870_750_625_500nmFoil.gif||500px|]] no 1000, 870, 750, 625 and 500 nm |
= ''' Half-Sigma Energy Slices -- Fit Parameters' Dependency ''' = | = ''' Half-Sigma Energy Slices -- Fit Parameters' Dependency ''' = | ||
| − | Half-sigma energy slices from -4 to +4 sigma looking at fit parameters A<sub>0< | + | Half-sigma energy slices from -4 to +4 sigma looking at fit parameters A<sub>0</sub>, b, c from form |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | using Run II data and 2/16/16 FESEM thickness data. | + | A(t) = (A<sub>0</sub> + b * t) / (1 + c * t) |
| + | |||
| + | using Run II data and 2/16/16 FESEM thickness data. This data is not "dilution"-subtracted, as I have not done a half-sigma energy slice study for "dilution"-subtracted data from either Run. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[file:Pade11.HalfSigmaSlices.jpeg||800px|]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | Text Document with table [[media:Run2.Pade11.FitParameters.HalfSigmaSlices.odt]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[file:Pade11.A_0.Plot.gif||600px|]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[file:Pade11.b.Plot.gif||600px|]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[file:Pade11.c.Plot.gif||600px|]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | All data, including asymmetry by half-sigma bin for every individual foil, the above plots and data, in a spreadsheet | ||
| + | [[media:Pade11.HalfSigmaSlices.AllData.ods]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | = ''' Best Cuts and Simulation Driven Fit ''' = | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[file:Run2_M0.5P2_dilution.gif||500px|]] Run 2, E-cut [-0.5:2] sigma, dilution subtracted | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[file:Run2_M1P3_dilution.gif||500px|]] Run 2, E-cut [-1:3] sigma, dilution subtracted | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[file:Run1_M0.5P2_dilution.gif||500px|]] Run 1, E-cut [-0.5:2] sigma, dilution subtracted | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[file:Run1_M1P3_dilution.gif||500px|]] Run 1, E-cut [-1:3] sigma, dilution subtracted | ||
Latest revision as of 08:09, 24 February 2016
Removing Thickest Foils
Fits of Run II data, "dilution"-subtracted, energy cut from -0.5 to +2 sigma, with thickest foils removed in sequence. Thickness data is from 1/22/16 and does not reflect newest FESEM thickness uncertainties presented 2/16/16. They, however, should not affect the fits dramatically.
Pade forms (0,1), red, former best fit; (2,0), blue, and (1,1), green are included. Note that from 2/16/16 presentation by Marty, the simulation-motivated best fit is the Pade (1,1), green on the plots, of the form
A(t) = (A0 + b * t) / (1 + c * t)
all foils
no 1000 nm
no 1000 and 870 nm
no 1000, 870, 750 nm
no 1000, 870, 750, 625 nm
no 1000, 870, 750, 625 and 500 nm
Half-Sigma Energy Slices -- Fit Parameters' Dependency
Half-sigma energy slices from -4 to +4 sigma looking at fit parameters A0, b, c from form
A(t) = (A0 + b * t) / (1 + c * t)
using Run II data and 2/16/16 FESEM thickness data. This data is not "dilution"-subtracted, as I have not done a half-sigma energy slice study for "dilution"-subtracted data from either Run.
Text Document with table media:Run2.Pade11.FitParameters.HalfSigmaSlices.odt
All data, including asymmetry by half-sigma bin for every individual foil, the above plots and data, in a spreadsheet media:Pade11.HalfSigmaSlices.AllData.ods
Best Cuts and Simulation Driven Fit
Run 2, E-cut [-0.5:2] sigma, dilution subtracted
Run 2, E-cut [-1:3] sigma, dilution subtracted
Run 1, E-cut [-0.5:2] sigma, dilution subtracted
Run 1, E-cut [-1:3] sigma, dilution subtracted