MC-truth match in a 7-photon final state [message #22975] |
Fri, 28 September 2018 13:22 |
Christian Will
Messages: 4 Registered: September 2018
|
occasional visitor |
From: *physik.uni-giessen.de
|
|
Dear all,
I am doing simulations of a decay tree including a hybrid candidate which has 7 photons (and an e+e- pair) as final state. As you may know, in the current PandaRoot implementation there is quite a high probability that a photon interacts (compton-scattering, pair-production, ...) before it creates an electromagnetic shower in the EMC. As a result, in my channel only in a tiny fraction of events none of the seven photons have interacted before showering. This is problematic for me because when I check my reconstructed hybrid candidate for Monte-Carlo truth matches, the number of MC-matches is very low. I currently assume(!) that the low number of MC-matches is caused by the fact that when one of the photons interacts before showering, the reconstructed decay tree does not match the decay tree for my hybrid candidate and the MC-match returns "false". This leads to the problem that I can't optimize my parameters because I can't determine what is signal and what is background properly.
Has anyone experienced similar issues and found a workaround or can at least confirm my assumption about the MC-matching?
Cheers,
Christian
(Giessen University, Germany)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: MC-truth match in a 7-photon final state [message #23059 is a reply to message #22975] |
Wed, 10 October 2018 10:45 |
Christian Will
Messages: 4 Registered: September 2018
|
occasional visitor |
From: *physik.uni-giessen.de
|
|
Ok, given that this is working, do you have any suggestions/ideas on how to handle the pair-production issue from a analysis point of view or know people who have dealt with similar problems?
If I consider those cases in which the particle of interest was reconstructed but at least one photon did pair production as background, I lose a huge fraction of my signal.
If I consider those cases as signal, I certainly have a systematic error I have to correct for (maybe some sort of energy-correction based on the multiplicity in an event?)
Thanks for your help!
Christian
|
|
|