<!-- Title: 12:31:14  Mon Dec 27 2004 -->
<!-- Crewchief: Ashutosh Kotwal -->
<!-- Op1: Chris Hays -->
<!-- Op2: Larry Nodulman -->
<!-- Op3: Oliver Stelzer-Chilton -->
<!-- Op4: William Trischuk -->
<!-- Op5: Ian Vollrath -->
<!-- Op6: &nbsp; -->
<!-- Notes: -->
<pre>starting CDF Run 2 W mass analysis e-log...</pre>


<!-- Date: Mon Dec 27 16:35:49 2004 -->
It's 80.4 GeV.
<!-- Author: Andy H. -->
<!-- Comment: Tue Dec 28 05;43;00 comment by...william -->
Oh well, thanks. That's it then. Good work Andy.


<!-- Date: Sun Jan 2 13:03:44 2005 -->
<center></center>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->


<!-- Date: Sun Jan 2 13:06:04 2005 -->
<center><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sun_Jan__2_2005_130140.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-2' ></a></center>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->


<!-- Date: Sun Jan 2 13:14:00 2005 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sun_Jan__2_2005_130934.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-4  align='top'></a></td><td>Z->ee mass fit (above) and e/p fit (left) after 
(1) merging photons at tower edge within 0.03 in delta-phi 
(2) fixing conversion electron bug 
 
latter discovered after Oliver found difference in calorimeter response in fast simulation between electrons and muons </td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->


<!-- Date: Sun Jan 2 13:30:46 2005 -->
<pre>Z-&gt;ee mass has moved down by about 100 MeV due to conversion bug fix (above)</pre>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->
<!-- Comment: Sun Jan  2 14;55;12 comment by...Ashutosh -->
<pre>radiation length of passive material extracted from E/p tail also needs retuning after conversion bug fix. New scale factor = 0.95 (down 9.5% from 1.045)</pre>
<!-- Date: Sun Jan 2 13:46:54 2005 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sun_Jan__2_2005_134623.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-8  align='top'></a></td><td>testing Z->ee mass sensitivity to E/p cut 
<p> 
The Z mass plot shows both data and simulation with E/p cut at 1.4 
<p> 
Statistics are reduced but no feature changes from E/p cut at 2 
</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->


<!-- Date: Sun Jan 2 14:07:58 2005 -->
<center><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sun_Jan__2_2005_140057.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-10' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sun_Jan__2_2005_140153.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-12' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sun_Jan__2_2005_140700.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-14' ></a></center>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->


<!-- Date: Sun Jan 2 14:11:11 2005 -->
<pre>I have added code to convert the QED photons in the fast simulation. Above are the resulting  
E/p, and Z mass fits. Only makes a 10-20 MeV difference, as I expected (barring statistical fluctuations due to fitting data)  
</pre>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->


<!-- Date: Sun Jan 2 14:30:28 2005 -->
<center><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sun_Jan__2_2005_142651.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-16' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sun_Jan__2_2005_142930.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-18' ></a></center>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->
<!-- Comment: Sun Jan  2 14;40;11 comment by...Ashutosh -->
<pre> I added cesX simulation and  cesX &lt;18 cut for electrons. Here is the E/p and Zee mass fits after that</pre>


<!-- Date: Sun Jan 2 14:48:05 2005 -->
<pre>Fixed ZatCal -&gt; iEta conversion bug found by Chris, so that positive iEta start at 0 not 1</pre>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->



<!-- Date: Sun Jan 2 15:11:32 2005 -->
<center><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sun_Jan__2_2005_150842.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-20' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sun_Jan__2_2005_150908.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-22' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sun_Jan__2_2005_150920.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-24' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sun_Jan__2_2005_151019.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-26' ></a></center>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->
<!-- Comment: Sun Jan  2 15;28;36 comment by...Ashutosh -->
<pre>I found big bug in AddRadiationtoClus. now Fixed. Photon direction information now propagated to routine. 
&lt;p&gt;
Requires retuning X0 from E/p tail up by 8%, scale factor increased from 0.95 to 1.03 
&lt;p&gt;
E/p tail plot after X0 tuning has much smaller chi2 than before
(3.5 instead of 29)
&lt;p&gt;
Z-&gt;ee mass increases by 400 meV and Z-&gt;mumu mass increases by 100 MeV after bug fix, loss mass tail much better matched by simulation than before
&lt;p&gt;
E scale needs retuning in data, need to reduce E scale correction factor from 1.003 to 1.002 in data</pre>


<!-- Date: Tue Jan 4 16:23:13 2005 -->
<pre>added electron acceptance cut on iEta to exclude tower 9, no change in E/p, W masses, no noticable difference in cosec(theta) distribution</pre>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->


<!-- Date: Sat Jan 8 15:36:27 2005 -->
I have upgraded the <a href=http://fcdfwww.fnal.gov/internal/physics/ewk/Wmass/>W mass group</a> web page.  Please let me know if there is anything else you would like to see there.  For reference, the old page is <a href=http://fcdfwww.fnal.gov/internal/physics/ewk/Wmass/indexold.html> 
here</a>.
<!-- Author: Chris -->


<!-- Date: Sun Jan 9 09:19:16 2005 -->
<pre>  I have updated the simulation and the fit functions in the repository.  The simulation files are now all in the wmass subdirectory and the fitter files are all in the macro subdirectory.   
 
  I tagged this version as winter05pre1 (to check out the tagged version, type "addpkg -h wmass winter05pre1" -- the files are currently the same with or without the tag, but that will change as we approach a winter05 tag).   
 
  I am in the process of adding the necessary input files (resbos text files, background/material/underlying event root files) to the W mass web page.  Only the resbos Z-&gt;mu mu text files are there now.</pre>
<!-- Author: Chris -->


<!-- Date: Mon Jan 10 15:10:36 2005 -->
<pre>I checked that the previous curvature correction derived for gen6 is ok for the slightly revised gen6 and mostly it is. The overall constant changed a bit - I now get 
        pinv=pinv-(.000035+.000063*cot+.000107*cot*cot+.000089*sin(phi+.26)); 
where that 35 is marked up from 20 and the error on it is 8, otherwise no  
change. 
 </pre>
<!-- Author: Larry  -->
<!-- Comment: Mon Jan 10 15;19;29 comment by...Chris -->
<pre>  This is a little surprising.  The minor modifications from the previous gen6 should have reduced the constant and the quadratic terms.</pre>

<!-- Comment: Mon Jan 10 15;23;25 comment by...Larry  -->
<pre>well the quadratic term is about ,6 sigma off, I can try zapping it
</pre>

<!-- Comment: Mon Jan 10 15;30;13 comment by...Larry  -->
<pre>oops &gt;22 &gt;22, should cut 25/25 stay tuned
</pre>


<!-- Comment: Mon Jan 10 16;19;10 comment by...Larry  -->
<pre>OKOK sign wrong but I redid the quad term now I get
pinv-(.000024+.000063cot+.000126cot*cot+ ...
where that is 24+/-8 and 126+/-27
So the constant is about the same and the quad term is up a bit.</pre>
<!-- Date: Mon Jan 10 15:37:55 2005 -->
<pre>I would like to propose that we change the simulated COT hit and SL efficiencies to be more consistent with the Z data.   
 
  For Z's and W's with a 3/3 requirement, the segment efficiency changes would be 85% -&gt; 88.7% in SL1 and 90% -&gt; 95.0% in SL2.  The 20% efficiency component would increase from 80% to 81% (the 80% component would stay at 93%). 
 
  For Z's with one 3/3 leg and one 2/2 leg, the changes would be 85% -&gt; 87.6% in SL1 and 90% -&gt; 95.0% in SL2.  The hit efficiencies would be 92.9% (80% component) and 80% (20% component).</pre>
<!-- Author: Chris -->
<!-- Comment: Mon Jan 10 15;46;23 comment by...Chris -->
<pre>It would also make sense to add SL3 inefficiencies, since our Z selection will include 2/2 muons.  The SL3 segment efficiency is only 96.1%.</pre>



<!-- Comment: Tue Jan 11 16;17;05 comment by...Oliver -->
<pre>i just checked what i was using (see W mass talk from 23rd of dec)
SL eff (0.892,0.955) and hit eff. (0.935,0.783,0.2). this made the mean and rms match.</pre>
<!-- Date: Mon Jan 10 16:27:40 2005 -->
<pre>Removed the dPhi "extension" of 0.03 at the edge of a tower for photon merging, since CESX cut X&lt;18 cm is now simulated for electrons. Therefore dPhi "extension" should not be needed. Repeated electron channel fits on data, moved by &lt;10 MeV, so OK.  
Z-&gt;mumu fit result moved by 20 MeV down after removing the dPhi extension. OK for now. </pre>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->


<!-- Date: Tue Jan 11 14:44:02 2005 -->
<pre>I checked gen6 vs bheld sample for z mass and e/p for ws. Simple gaus fit 86-98 Z goes from 91.161+/-.06 to 91.137 +/-.09 with 3470 events instead of the bheld 5248 events.  &lt;E/p&gt; windowed .0-1.1 goers from 1.023 to 1.024.  No great changes.</pre>
<!-- Author: Larry  -->



<!-- Date: Tue Jan 11 16:21:35 2005 -->
<pre>over the holidays, i resubmitted the pdf files again. this time 
with the more recent simulation (incl the 25/25 cuts) 
Sahand just computed the new numbers: 
Mt: 13 MeV 
Pt: 26 MeV 
Met: 23 MeV</pre>
<!-- Author: Oliver -->


<!-- Date: Fri Jan 14 10:41:36 2005 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-27&button=yes target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'; align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-28  width='300' align='top'></a></td><td>The difference in |z| for the extrapolated track minus the shower max z shows the average z alignment of the arch. Negative means the arch is (as  
expected) away from z=0 by a bit. Top is west wedges bottom east. The gap is a bit bigger than 9 mm and average z is about 3.5 mm west.</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Larry  -->
<!-- Comment: Fri Jan 14 11;22;50 comment by...Larry  -->
<pre>The above is for 2005 run data, if I go back and look at older data I get -6.0 mm and -2.7 mm so the gap was similar and the whole thing either moved or perhaps the alignment changed.</pre>


<!-- Date: Sat Jan 15 09:06:07 2005 -->
<center><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sat_Jan_15_2005_090335.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-32' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sat_Jan_15_2005_090350.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-34' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sat_Jan_15_2005_090411.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-36' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sat_Jan_15_2005_090424.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-38' ></a></center>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->
<!-- Comment: Sat Jan 15 09;12;19 comment by...Ashutosh -->
<pre>chris, Oliver and I discover that adding photon direction information to AddRadiationtoClus and calling it with tanalpla=0 for photons invoked another bug in MovePhotonPhi. This implementation was causing all photons to be excluded from AddRadiationtoClus. Divide by 0 bug in MovePhotonPhi has been fixed. This essentially negates the "bug fix # 2" I reported in EWK meeting talk of January 6, 2005. Plots above are show that
things go back to essentially what they looked like after "bug fix # 1" reported in the same talk. </pre>


<!-- Date: Sun Jan 16 22:29:27 2005 -->
<center><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sun_Jan_16_2005_222744.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-40' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sun_Jan_16_2005_222759.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-42' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sun_Jan_16_2005_222822.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-44' ></a></center>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->
<!-- Comment: Sun Jan 16 22;39;31 comment by...Ashutosh -->
<pre>plots after retuned X0

also, Chris proposed that simulation should make COT hits only in COT fiducial region. Added his code and reran. Not expected to make a difference since non-fiducial COT tracks are ultimately removed, but protection at TrackFitter level prevents bad fits and NaN results. Fits after this protection return essentially the same results as before. </pre>


<!-- Date: Thu Jan 27 19:50:31 2005 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/wmass/Thu_Jan_27_2005_195009.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-46  align='top'></a></td><td>Removed from the fast simulation the 3-tower merging of photons around muon. Replaced by information from Chris: if muon is more than 1.58 cm away from z-edge of tower, make single-tower muon cluster. Otherwise, make 2-tower muon cluster, adding the tower adjacent to z-edge.  
Increases Z mass by 25 MeV</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->


<!-- Date: Thu Jan 27 22:46:01 2005 -->
<center><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Thu_Jan_27_2005_224518.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-48' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Thu_Jan_27_2005_224533.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-50' ></a></center>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->
<!-- Comment: Thu Jan 27 22;47;12 comment by...Ashutosh -->
<pre>recoil tuning plots from Z-&gt;mumu, before adding both photons to recoil</pre>


<!-- Date: Fri Jan 28 13:34:27 2005 -->
<center><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Fri_Jan_28_2005_133337.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-52' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Fri_Jan_28_2005_133400.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-54' ></a></center>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->
<!-- Comment: Fri Jan 28 13;42;21 comment by...Ashutosh -->
<pre>recoil tuning plots from Z-&gt;mumu, after adding both photons to recoil (when photons are generated from histogram per lepton). No effect on Z-&gt;mumu mass</pre>


<!-- Date: Sat Jan 29 13:20:34 2005 -->
<center><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sat_Jan_29_2005_131938.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-56' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sat_Jan_29_2005_132001.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-58' ></a></center>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->
<!-- Comment: Sat Jan 29 13;30;47 comment by...Ashutosh -->
<pre>before adding both photons to recoil</pre>


<!-- Date: Sat Jan 29 13:59:36 2005 -->
<center><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sat_Jan_29_2005_134129.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-64' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sat_Jan_29_2005_135920.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-66' ></a></center>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->
<!-- Comment: Sat Jan 29 14;02;43 comment by...Ashutosh -->
<pre>recoil tuning plots from Z-&gt;ee, after adding both photons to recoil (when photons are generated from histogram per lepton). No effect on Z-&gt;ee mass</pre>


<!-- Date: Thu Feb 3 20:45:43 2005 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/wmass/Thu_Feb__3_2005_204527.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-68  align='top'></a></td><td>from Chris: added 1 or 2 tower underlying event energy to muon towers. expect and observe very small effect on Z->mumu mass</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->


<!-- Date: Sat Feb 5 14:57:47 2005 -->
<pre>Incorporated new Det.cc from Chris, which fixes COT outer radius (makes it bigger by ~10cm) and shrinks radial wire spacing from ~7.6 mm to ~5.8 mm (corrects for tilt angle). Z mass does not change, but resolution improves in MC. Need to increase hit resolution in MC</pre>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->


<!-- Date: Mon Feb 7 13:29:24 2005 -->
<center><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Mon_Feb__7_2005_132827.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-70' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Mon_Feb__7_2005_132850.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-72' ></a></center>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->
<!-- Comment: Mon Feb  7 13;31;52 comment by...Ashutosh -->
<pre>increased cot hit resolution to 235 microns (from 200 microns) to match Z-mumu mass width. also works for E/p peak </pre>


<!-- Date: Tue Feb 22 11:24:06 2005 -->
<center><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Tue_Feb_22_2005_112312.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-74' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Tue_Feb_22_2005_112336.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-76' ></a></center>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->
<!-- Comment: Tue Feb 22 11;29;21 comment by...Ashutosh -->
<pre>Updated underlying event energy in electron cluster

Chris: use 2-tower measurement rather than 3-tower * 2/3

Oliver: underlying event energy being over-estimated because              zeros were not included. Chris made new histogram                 including zeros. This shifts E/p and Z-ee mass up by ~300         MeV. Need new energy scale to make E/p = 1. Expect 30 MeV
        increase in Z-ee mass after that. </pre>


<!-- Date: Wed Feb 23 14:14:56 2005 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/wmass/Wed_Feb_23_2005_141449.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-80  align='top'></a></td><td>Using latest muon underlying event histograms from Chris changes Z->mumu mass by 10 MeV</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->


<!-- Date: Fri Feb 25 14:48:58 2005 -->
<center><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Fri_Feb_25_2005_144748.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-82' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Fri_Feb_25_2005_144814.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-84' ></a><a href='/elog/notebooks/wmass/Fri_Feb_25_2005_144833.ps'><img src='/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-86' ></a></center>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->
<!-- Comment: Fri Feb 25 14;51;16 comment by...Ashutosh -->
<pre>continued from item of Tue Feb 22 11:24:06 above:

changed data energy scale of calorimeter to make E/p = 1
</pre>


<!-- Date: Sat Feb 26 07:11:23 2005 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/elog/notebooks/wmass/Sat_Feb_26_2005_071059.ps align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-88  align='top'></a></td><td>included muon energy loss (measured from cosmic rays) 
into EM tower energy. Latter has 2 GeV cut.  
 
reduces data fitted W and Z masses by 10-20 MeV</td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Ashutosh -->


<!-- Date: Fri Mar 4 11:42:05 2005 -->
<table><tr><td><a href=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-89&button=yes target='xxx' onclick='jswindow()'; align=top><img src=/cgi/elog/det-system-elog.pl?nb=wmass&action=view&page=-89  width='300' align='top'></a></td><td>I used a cpr2 mip cut to select pure pion fakes.  It did not do what I thought. The cpr2 cut leaves 9 out of 800 Z candidates, fewer in peak. The points flat at 1 are the  normal calibration events, higher points are W subset, lower points are cpr2 mip subset.  Perhaps the normal calibration sample has lots of conversion guys which have another photon out there (despite my ntrack=1 cut) so towers that are bigger targets get more energy? I conclude for the moment that data smiles too much, </td></tr></table>
<!-- Author: Larry  -->