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

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

INFN Milano, Universita` degli Studi Milano Bicocca Siena IPRD May Testbeam results of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter Alessio Ghezzi.

Advertisements

Beam direction and flux measured by MUMON K. Matsuoka (Kyoto) for the MUMON group Contents: 1.Beam stability (direction/flux) 2.Absolute  beam flux.

ATLAS Tile Calorimeter Performance Henric Wilkens (CERN), on behalf of the ATLAS collaboration.

Muon g-2 and SLAC Detector Test T-519 Momentu m Spin e David Hertzog University of Washington.

Electromagnetic shower in the AHCAL selection criteria data / MonteCarlo comparison of: handling linearity shower shapes CALICE collaboration meeting may.

2 Introduction   MiniCal test-beam studies started at the beginning of March (till March 6 we only had 17 APD’s, then 33 APD’s)   A few days were.

AHCAL Saturation Study CALICE week – Casablanca, Morocco 2010/09/22 Jaroslav Zalesak Institute of Physics, Prague / DESY Study of single SiPM response.

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

ECAL Spike Plot Approval ECAL Anomalous Signal Plots Approval Adi Bornheim for ECAL

TileCal Electronics A Status Report J. Pilcher 17-Sept-1998.

GLAST LAT Project Instrument Analysis Workshop 6 – 06/02/27 F. Piron & E. Nuss (LPTA) 1 Trending CAL performance and mapping crystals Gamma-ray Large Area.

ECAL Testbeam Meeting, Rome 28 March 2007 Toyoko Orimoto Adolf Bornheim, Chris Rogan, Yong Yang California Institute of Technology Lastest Results from.

GLAST LAT Project Instrument Analysis Workshop 5 – 05/08/29 F. Piron & E. Nuss (IN2P3/LPTA – Montpellier) 1 Comprehensive review of CAL calibrations Gamma-ray.

Introduction to Hadronic Final State Reconstruction in Collider Experiments Introduction to Hadronic Final State Reconstruction in Collider Experiments.

ECAL TIMING. 20/04/092 Ratios’ Method Basics Position of pulse maximum parameterized using the ratio of two consecutive samples, i.e., R = A(t)/A(t+1)

FMS review, Sep FPD/FMS: calibrations and offline reconstruction Measurements of inclusive  0 production Reconstruction algorithm - clustering.

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

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

PERFORMANCE OF THE MACRO LIMITED STREAMER TUBES IN DRIFT MODE FOR MEASUREMENTS OF MUON ENERGY - Use of the MACRO limited streamer tubes in drift mode -Use.

14/02/2007 Paolo Walter Cattaneo 1 1.Trigger analysis 2.Muon rate 3.Q distribution 4.Baseline 5.Pulse shape 6.Z measurement 7.Att measurement OUTLINE.

The Scintillator ECAL Beam Test at FNAL Adil Khan International Linear Collider Workshop 2010 LCWS10 & ILC10, Beijing, China CALICE Scintillator ECAL group.

A.Chekhtman1 GLAST LAT ProjectBeam test meeting, September 27, 2006 CsI afterglow - possible explaination of pedestal drift and excess of energy. Alexandre.

M.D. Nov 27th 2002M0' analysis workshop1 Monitoring system : lessons from M0’  Contents : Monitoring electronics Laser APD electronics Conclusions & requirements.

Calibration of the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter with first LHC data

The ZEUS Hadron-Electron-Separator Performance and Experience Peter Göttlicher (DESY) for the ZEUS-HES-group Contributions to HES Germany, Israel, Japan,

Pion Showers in Highly Granular Calorimeters Jaroslav Cvach on behalf of the CALICE Collaboration Institute of Physics of the ASCR, Na Slovance 2, CZ -

1 Energy loss correction for a crystal calorimeter He Miao Institute of High Energy Physics Beijing, P.R.China.

21 Jun 2010Paul Dauncey1 First look at FNAL tracking chamber alignment Paul Dauncey, with lots of help from Daniel and Angela.

Shashlyk FE-DAQ requirements Pavel Semenov IHEP, Protvino on behalf of the IHEP PANDA group PANDA FE-DAQ workshop, Bodenmais April 2009.

Feb. 7, 2007First GLAST symposium1 Measuring the PSF and the energy resolution with the GLAST-LAT Calibration Unit Ph. Bruel on behalf of the beam test.

Calibration of the PHENIX Lead Scintillator Calorimeter H.Torii for the PHENIX Collaboration Kyoto Univ./RIKEN Contents Lead Scintillator Calorimeter(PbSc)

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

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

Calorimeter in front of MUCh Mikhail Prokudin. Overview ► Geometry and acceptance ► Reconstruction procedure  Cluster finder algorithms  Preliminary.

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.

1 P.Rebecchi (CERN) “Monitoring of radiation damage of PbWO 4 crystals under strong Cs 137  irradiation in GIF-ECAL” “Advanced Technology and Particle.

5-9 June 2006Erika Garutti - CALOR CALICE scintillator HCAL commissioning experience and test beam program Erika Garutti On behalf of the CALICE.

TTF - ECAL Plenary in CMS week ECAL Stability Contacts: Marc Dejardin, Julie Malcles (laser)

Nantes — 2008, July Analysis of results from EmCal beam test at CERN PS (and SPS) energies P. La Rocca & F. Riggi University & INFN Catania University.

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

LHCf Detectors Sampling Calorimeter W 44 r.l, 1.6λ I Scintilator x 16 Layers Position Detector Scifi x 4 (Arm#1) Scilicon Tracker x 4(Arm#2) Detector size.

Studies of Electroweak Interactions and Searches for New Physics Using Photonic Events with Missing Energy at the Large Electron-Positron Collider Marat.

Calibration of energies at the photon collider Valery Telnov Budker INP, Novosibirsk TILC09, Tsukuba April 18, 2009.

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

Régis Lefèvre (LPC Clermont-Ferrand - France)ATLAS Physics Workshop - Lund - September 2001 In situ jet energy calibration General considerations The different.

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.

WACH4 26/11/2002Julien Cogan CERN/EP/CMA-1- THERMAL STEPS ANALYSIS Goals & Means : –apply a “step function” on the cooling water –look at : APD response.

MEG 実験 2009 液体キセノン検出器の性能 II 西村康宏, 他 MEG コラボレーション東京大学素粒子物理国際研究センター第 65 回年次大会岡山大学.

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.

Feb. 3, 2007IFC meeting1 Beam test report Ph. Bruel on behalf of the beam test working group Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope.

Beam direction and flux measured by MUMON K. Matsuoka (Kyoto) for the MUMON group Contents: 1.Horn focusing effect 2.Beam stability (direction/flux) 3.Beam.

3/06/06 CALOR 06Alexandre Zabi - Imperial College1 CMS ECAL Performance: Test Beam Results Alexandre Zabi on behalf of the CMS ECAL Group CMS ECAL.

1 Methods of PSD energy calibration. 2 Dependence of energy resolution on many factors Constant term is essential only for energy measurement of single.

11 june 2002 CMS ECAL : Patrick Jarry ( Saclay) 1 Pulse shape reconstruction : CMS ECAL Introduction –the problem –the tools –experimental pulse shape.

FSC status and plans Pavel Semenov IHEP, Protvino

EZDC spectra reconstruction and calibration

Resolution Studies of the CMS ECAL in the 2003 Test Beam

The Silicon Drift Detector of the ALICE Experiment

Pulse shape reconstruction : CMS ECAL

CALICE scintillator HCAL

Tracking System at CERN 06 and 07 test beams

Impact of remanent fields on SPS chromaticity

CMS Preshower: Startup procedures: Reconstruction & calibration

CMS ECAL Calibration and Test Beam Results

Correction of saturation effect of ICCD

EM Linearity using calibration constants from Geant4

HyCal Energy Calibration using dedicated Compton runs

Slope measurements from test-beam irradiations

CAL crosstalk issues and their implications

Presentation transcript:

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

M.D. Nov 27th 2002M0' workshop2 Monitoring system description Absolute linearity study of PN readout electronics Relative linearity study of APD readout electronics with respect to PN diodes Beam : Consistency check of the method

M.D. Nov 27th 2002M0' workshop3 PN linearity with test pulse  Able to measure absolute non-linearity on PN electronics Look at residuals

M.D. Nov 27th 2002M0' workshop4 APD study : Pedestal corrections  Remarks on pedestals : Variation with laser intensity  100 crystals fired at the same time ! BUT :  Pedestals different for Fixed G33 and Free G33 !  Hidden free gains (G9, G5 and G1) pedestals inaccessible ! Affect energy measurement !  Laser in fixed and free gain  Beam in free gain  Use dynamic pedestals XT1142

M.D. Nov 27th 2002M0' workshop5 FPPA non-linearity after PN correction  Non-linearities less pronounced in G33 than previously found in september Effect of dynamic pedestals XT1142

M.D. Nov 27th 2002M0' workshop6 Beam injection  Ingredients : Energy computation  Dynamic pedestals (not very useful : fixed gain)  Crystal 120  G33/G9 intercalibration from Laser runs  To be refined due to change of fppa shaping time with amplitude (G9)  disentangle laser pulse width and fppa shaping effects  Use experimental pulse shapes Two energy scan :  2002/08/07 : 20 – 35 – 50 – 80 – 120 – 150 – 180 GeV/c  2002/08/23 : 20 – 30 – 50 – 80 – 120 – 150 – 180 –200 – 250 – 280 GeV/c Look at crystal 1142 & 1144 For single crystal analysis :  2x2 mm at maximum energy deposition

M.D. Nov 27th 2002M0' workshop7 Beam injection  Location of maximum energy deposition : Log dependence with energy Different for X and Y Check in MC (A. Givernaud)  OK

M.D. Nov 27th 2002M0' workshop8 Linearity results with beam  Without linearity corrections : 2002/08/07 XT1142XT1144 Suspicious runs … Wrong Xtal ? Calibration change by 6/1000 between 2002/08/07 and 2002/08/23 !

M.D. Nov 27th 2002M0' workshop9 Linearity results with beam  With linearity corrections : XT1142XT1144 No laser data at this energy for this crystal

M.D. Nov 27th 2002M0' workshop10 Resolution with electron  Single crystal (  1 ) : ~250 MeV noise XT /08/ /08/ /08/ /08/23 XT1144

M.D. Nov 27th 2002M0' workshop11 Resolution with electron  Sum of 5 crystals (  5 ) : ~1250 MeV noise XT1142XT /08/ /08/ /08/ /08/23

M.D. Nov 27th 2002M0' workshop12 Resolution with electron  Sum of 9 crystals (  9 ) : ~2000 MeV noise XT1142XT /08/ /08/ /08/ /08/23

M.D. Nov 27th 2002M0' workshop13 Look at noise correlation  Correlation : About 50 % on the whole matrix  Correction : Remove 5x5 matrix around fired crystal Compute sample average on remaining 74 crystals Correct all samples event by event Redo energy reconstruction 1142

M.D. Nov 27th 2002M0' workshop14 Resolution with electron after decorrelation  Single crystal (  1 ) : ~180 MeV noise (was 250) XT /08/ /08/ /08/ /08/23 XT1144

M.D. Nov 27th 2002M0' workshop15 Resolution with electron after decorrelation  Sum of 5 crystals (  5 ) : ~750 MeV noise (was 1250) XT1142XT /08/ /08/ /08/ /08/23

M.D. Nov 27th 2002M0' workshop16 Resolution with electron after decorrelation  Sum of 9 crystals (  9 ) : ~1000 MeV noise (was 2000) XT1142XT /08/ /08/ /08/ /08/23 Steps not compatible with g33/g9 noise ratio

M.D. Nov 27th 2002M0' workshop17 Conclusions and to-do list  Linearity : Linearity measurement with laser in good agreement with beam results for E > 50 GeV Need to understand discrepancy for lower energy  Preliminary results on MC shows lower shower containment in single crystal for low energy particles  Effect of material in front of M0’ ?  Beam calibration ?  Others ?  Noise : Simple decorrelation algorithm improve resolution for about a factor of 2. Need to understand G33/G9 noise step  Extra contribution ? Try  5 and  9 in free gain mode  Calibration : Understand drift with time !