LAr Reconstruction: Data vs MC (parabola) S.Paganis (Wisconsin) WithManuel,Isabelle,Martin,Karina,Walter,… LAr H8 Meeting, CERN, 5-April-2005.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

FCal TB2003 Shower profiles: G4/MC - Test beam DATA comparison A.Artamonov and ITEP group /afs/cern.ch/user/g/gorbunov/public/prof_note.pdf.

Advertisements

Status of CTB04 electron data vs MC analysis Stathes Paganis (Sheffield) Martin Aleksa (CERN) Isabelle Wingerter (LAPP) LAr Week, Cargnano, Italy 13-Sep-05.

Recent Results on Radiative Kaon decays from NA48 and NA48/2. Silvia Goy López (for the NA48 and NA48/2 collaborations) Universitá degli Studi di Torino.

LAr Response to pions: Data vs MC (work in progress) S.Paganis (Wisconsin) withIsabelle,Martin LAr+Tile H8 pion CTB Meeting, CERN, 19-April-2005.

Implementation of e-ID based on BDT in Athena EgammaRec Hai-Jun Yang University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (with T. Dai, X. Li, A. Wilson, B. Zhou) US-ATLAS.

Preshower 15/03/2005 P.Kokkas Preshower September Run Data Analysis P. Kokkas.

1 Study of the Tail Catcher Muon Tracker (TCMT) Scintillator Strips and Leakage with Simulated Coil Rick Salcido Northern Illinois University For CALICE.

Off-axis Simulations Peter Litchfield, Minnesota  What has been simulated?  Will the experiment work?  Can we choose a technology based on simulations?

Ricardo GoncaloZEUS Week - London June Neutral Current 99/00 e + p Analysis Status Ken Long Matthias Moritz Henning Scnurbusch Ricardo Gonçalo Thanks.

CMS Physics Meeting, Dec. 6, Analysis Note on the Validation of the ORCA Simulation of the Endcap Muon CSC Front-end Electronics S. Durkin -- Ohio.

1Calice-UK Cambridge 9/9/05D.R. Ward David Ward Compare Feb’05 DESY data with Geant4 and Geant3 Monte Carlos. Work in progress – no definitive conclusions.

Michele Faucci Giannelli TILC09, Tsukuba, 18 April 2009 SiW Electromagnetic Calorimeter Testbeam results.

MCP checks for the H-4l mass. Outline and work program The problems: – Higgs mass difference from the  – Possible single resonant peak mass shift (with.

Energy Flow and Jet Calibration Mark Hodgkinson Artemis Meeting 27 September 2007 Contains work by R.Duxfield,P.Hodgson, M.Hodgkinson,D.Tovey.

W  eν The W->eν analysis is a phi uniformity calibration, and only yields relative calibration constants. This means that all of the α’s in a given eta.

Preliminary comparison of ATLAS Combined test-beam data with G4: pions in calorimetric system Andrea Dotti, Per Johansson Physics Validation of LHC Simulation.

LAr Response to pions: Data vs MC S.Paganis (Wisconsin) with Isabelle Winterger,Martin Aleksa LAr Week CTB Meeting, CERN, 10-May-2005.

Montpellier, November 15, 2003 J. Cvach, TileHCAL and APD readout1 TileHCAL- fibre readout by APD APDs and preamplifiers Energy scan with DESY beam –Energy.

In geometry, two objects are similar when one is a scale model of the other. SIMILAR SHAPES.

Marco Delmastro 23/02/2006 Status of LAr EM performance andmeasurements fro CTB1 Status of LAr EM performance and measurements for CTB Overview Data -

A. Gibson, Toronto; Villa Olmo 2009; ATLAS LAr Commissioning October 5, 2009 Commissioning of the ATLAS Liquid Argon Calorimeter Adam Gibson University.

1 Calice UK Meeting 27/03/07David Ward Plans; timescales for having analysis results for LCWS Status of current MC/data reconstruction Reconstruction status;

8 June 2006V. Niess- CALOR Chicago1 The Simulation of the ATLAS Liquid Argon Calorimetry V. Niess CPPM - IN2P3/CNRS - U. Méditerranée – France On.

Update on Material Studies - Progress on Linearity using calib-hits (very brief) - Revisiting the material problem: - a number of alternative scenarios.

Ideas for in-situ calibration for the EMC S.Paganis, K.Loureiro ( Wisconsin ) input from+discussions with T.Carli, F.Djama, G.Unal, D.Zerwas, M.Boonekamp,

CaloTopoCluster Based Energy Flow and the Local Hadron Calibration Mark Hodgkinson June 2009 Hadronic Calibration Workshop.

CTB04: electron Data vs MC Stathes Paganis University of Sheffield LAr CTB04 WG 25-Aug-05.

EM Resolution Studies D. Banfi, L. Carminati (Milano), S.Paganis (Wisconsin) egamma WG, Atlas Software Week, CERN, 26-May-2005.

G4 Validation meeting (5/11/2003) S.VIRET LPSC Grenoble Photon testbeam Data/G4 comparison  Motivation  Testbeam setup & simulation  Analysis & results.

First look at non-Gaussian tails with the new Reconstruction Stathes Paganis Univ. of Sheffield LAr-H8 Working Group, 18-Oct-05.

Results from particle beam tests of the ATLAS liquid argon endcap calorimeters Beam test setup Signal reconstruction Response to electrons  Electromagnetic.

1ECFA/Vienna 16/11/05D.R. Ward David Ward Compare these test beam data with Geant4 and Geant3 Monte Carlos. CALICE has tested an (incomplete) prototype.

13 July 2005 ACFA8 Gamma Finding procedure for Realistic PFA T.Fujikawa(Tohoku Univ.), M-C. Chang(Tohoku Univ.), K.Fujii(KEK), A.Miyamoto(KEK), S.Yamashita(ICEPP),

Test beam preliminary results D. Di Filippo, P. Massarotti, T. Spadaro.

Jyly 8, 2009, 3rd open meeting of Belle II collaboration, KEK1 Charles University Prague Zdeněk Doležal for the DEPFET beam test group 3rd Open Meeting.

Min-DHCAL: Measurements with Pions Benjamin Freund and José Repond Argonne National Laboratory CALICE Collaboration Meeting Max-Planck-Institute, Munich.

CALOR April Algorithms for the DØ Calorimeter Sophie Trincaz-Duvoid LPNHE – PARIS VI for the DØ collaboration  Calorimeter short description.

A bin-free Extended Maximum Likelihood Fit + Feldman-Cousins error analysis Peter Litchfield  A bin free Extended Maximum Likelihood method of fitting.

Mark Dorman UCL/RAL MINOS Collaboration Meeting Fermilab, Oct. 05 Data/MC Comparisons and Estimating the ND Flux with QE Events ● Update on QE event selection.

T. Lari – INFN Milan Status of ATLAS Pixel Test beam simulation Status of the validation studies with test-beam data of the Geant4 simulation and Pixel.

Longitudinal shower profile - CERN electron runs Valeria Bartsch University College London.

22 January 2009 David1 Look at dead material and fake MET in Jx samples mc08 10 TeV simulations, release J0 to J6 are tag s479_r586, ‘ideal geometry’

Electron Calibration and Performance ( ) N. Benekos (MPI), R. Nikolaidou (Saclay), S. Paganis (Sheffield) Contributions from: A. Farbin (CERN) +

DREAM Coll. Meeting, Rome 2009F. Bedeschi, INFN-Pisa Template Analysis of DRS Data  Motivations  Preliminary results F. Bedeschi, R. Carosi, M. Incagli,

Discussion on Combined (ID+LAr) Material Studies action plan  Latest LAr linearity plot from period 5  Discussion on test MC run production.

CALICE, CERN June 29, 2004J. Zálešák, APDs for tileHCAL1 APDs for tileHCAL MiniCal studies with APDs in e-test beam J. Zálešák, Prague with different preamplifiers.

Testbeam analysis Lesya Shchutska. 2 beam telescope ECAL trigger  Prototype: short bars (3×7.35×114 mm 3 ), W absorber, 21 layer, 18 X 0  Readout: Signal.

Electrons in CTB: status of data/MC comparisons LAr & Inner Detector H8 CTB groups Physics Week, CERN, 30-May-2006.

M.D. Nov 27th 2002M0' workshop1 M0’ linearity study  Contents : Electronic injection Laser injection Beam injection Conclusion.

Status of the measurement of K L lifetime - Data sample (old): ~ 440 pb -1 ( ) - MC sample: ~125 pb -1 ( mk0 stream ) Selection: standard tag (|

A Measurement of the Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Ray Spectrum with the HiRes FADC Detector (HiRes-2) Andreas Zech (for the HiRes Collaboration) Rutgers University.

Check of Calibration Hits in the Atlas simulation. Assignment of DM energy to CaloCluster. G.Pospelov Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk,

ECAL Interaction layer PFA Template Track/CalCluster Association Track extrapolation Mip finding Shower interaction point Shower cluster pointing Shower.

A Study on Leakage and Energy Resolution

Michele Faucci Giannelli

LAr Response to pions: Data vs MC

on behalf of ATLAS LAr Endcap Group

CALICE scintillator HCAL

Integration and alignment of ATLAS SCT

First look at data/MC comparison for period 8 reference runs

Introduction The aim of this talk is to try to get a feeling on the expected degradation of performance of a calibration once we move from MonteCarlo.

Charged Particle Multiplicity in DIS

Charged Particle Multiplicity in DIS

Atlantis and the Inner Detector

Visual Checks of the Reconstruction using Atlantis

EM Linearity using calibration constants from Geant4

Rick Salcido Northern Illinois University For CALICE Collaboration

Preliminary Request: Mean Charged Multiplicity in DIS

Update on Ecal simulation

Overview of Beam Test Benoit, Ronaldo and Eduardo Nov 8 , 2005 thanks to Steve and Bill for helping to consolidate all the information.

Presentation transcript:

LAr Reconstruction: Data vs MC (parabola) S.Paganis (Wisconsin) WithManuel,Isabelle,Martin,Karina,Walter,… LAr H8 Meeting, CERN, 5-April-2005

5-Apr-2005LAr CTB04 Data vs MC2Motivation  Go through a full MC vs Data analysis within Athena (preparation exercise)  Find differences and understand what is missing from the MC before we have a realistic comparison with data (complicated) To avoid “apples and oranges” comparisons To avoid inducing systematics in the Data Analysis due to incomplete MC simulation (profiles, Charge coll, ADC2MeV)  Ambitious: try to make some Data vs MC comparison plots and draw some prelim conclusions Example: the parabola reconstruction of the ADCpeak.

5-Apr-2005LAr CTB04 Data vs MC3 Program Flow ( release ): Analysis C++ Package MC: ADC2MEV happens here Thanks to: Manuel Galas Final Physics Plots jobOptions.G4Ctb_Dig.py Reconstruction ESD and CBNT Data: ADC2MEV here CTB04 Data jobOptions.G4Ctb_Sim.py TBAnalysis on ESD miniCBNT +G4Apps

5-Apr-2005LAr CTB04 Data vs MC4Analysis  Run: GeV electrons Aug.Material scan, but this run has no extra material  Parabola Energy reconstruction 50MeV “cubicADCcut” in LArRawChannelSimpleBuilder.cxx  A2MEV numbers from EMTB  EMTB 3x3 clustering  No cluster corrections, No Long. weigths  No shower cuts yet. Cut only on Tile Energy and phi  MC New “pythonized” version (powerful) Charge collection corrections Tried to get “correct” beam profile … ADC2MEV in Digitization step (careful to choose parabola)

5-Apr-2005LAr CTB04 Data vs MC5 ADC2MEV (Data vs MC) ADC2DACDAC2Volt Volts2  A  A2MeV How:Ramps uA/Volt Injection Resistor (t drift *W)/e  1/SF PS (EMB1) /R=0.114 nA 1250 S1 (EMB1) nA S2 (EMB1) nA S3 (EMB1) nA MC ADC2MEV(PS) = 7.0 MC ADC2MEV(S1) = 2.5 MC ADC2MEV(S2) = 12.0 Data ADC2MEV(PS) ~ 7.2 Data ADC2MEV(S1) ~ 2.4 Data ADC2MEV(S2) ~ vary 10.0,12.0,16.0

5-Apr-2005LAr CTB04 Data vs MC6 How to go to the visible energy for Data: an example (S.P.) SF(Presampler <0.8)=t*W/e/1250 = SF(Accordion <0.8)=t*W/e/ =

5-Apr-2005LAr CTB04 Data vs MC7 50 GeV data vs e and  MC Shapes between Data and  MC do not agree Electron MC energy shifted by -2.5%

5-Apr-2005LAr CTB04 Data vs MC8 50 GeV data vs e and  MC Shapes between Data and  MC do not agree

5-Apr-2005LAr CTB04 Data vs MC9 Energy in Tile0 vs Erec in LAr (Data) Tail?

5-Apr-2005LAr CTB04 Data vs MC10 Beam profile: we need a match with MC Dip is not appearing in MC Data

5-Apr-2005LAr CTB04 Data vs MC11 Erec after only Tile cut (E 0 <300MeV) Fit on the MC only! Tail: Early Brem? ADCpeak? Other? Electron MC energy shifted by -2.5%

5-Apr-2005LAr CTB04 Data vs MC12 Erec per LAr Layer for 50GeV e (we need the visible Energy) Strips: inconsistency (ADC2MEV lower than in MC) Data

5-Apr-2005LAr CTB04 Data vs MC13 Strips: for Erec>45GeV, Data show large fraction of Energy outside core

5-Apr-2005LAr CTB04 Data vs MC14 Check a strip (  )=(117,2): usually part of the electron cluster This one looks narrower in the Data: to be checked

5-Apr-2005LAr CTB04 Data vs MC15 Summary/To check (before cluster calibrations/corrections)  Need to check the agreement of the MC geometry with the runs I am analyzing (true for everybody)  Need to run MC with correct beam profile  Need to compare layer response visible energy  Strip response needs to be understood Probably MC is not reflecting correctly the noise (including cross- talk)  Electron tail needs to be understood  Study different beam energies  On the positive side: the non-tail region of the electron energy is in agreement with MC giving a ~1.1GeV Gaussian  for 50GeV