DAQMB/FEBs Readiness for First Beam

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

“Teach A Level Maths” Vol. 1: AS Core Modules

Advertisements

CSC Test Beam Data Analysis Alexander Khodinov and Valeri Tcherniatine.

US Beam Test Results and ORCA validation for CMS EMU CSC front-end electronics N. Terentiev Carnegie Mellon University CMS EMU Meeting, CERN June 18, 2005.

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

Ran my analysis software for position 1-6 from 2006 run. Same data set shown by Jerry at Vienna but my own analysis code version. Still no treatment of.

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.

Track Fitting and Comparator Results Emu UC Davis Feb. 26, 2005 Yangheng Zheng University of California, Los Angeles  Motivation & Introduction.

Beam profile vs time Analyzed Vx vs Vy distributions vs time for –Run 72 (13:26:02 – 28:25) –Run 73 (13:36:10 – 13:37:30) –Run 74 (43:12 – 44:21) Binned.

Page 1 Calculating the Beam Position at the Ecal for DESY Run (Independent of Tracking) Hakan Yilmaz.

Beam line characterization with the TOFs1 Demonstrating the emittance-momentum matrix Mark Rayner, CM26 California, 24 March Initial.

US Beam Test Results and ORCA validation for CMS EMU CSC front-end electronics N. Terentiev Carnegie Mellon University CMS EMU Meeting, Fermilab October.

1 Cluster Quality in Track Fitting for the ATLAS CSC Detector David Primor 1, Nir Amram 1, Erez Etzion 1, Giora Mikenberg 2, Hagit Messer 1 1. Tel Aviv.

S. Durkin, USCMS-EMU Meeting, Oct. 21, 2005 Critical Data Errors S. Durkin The Ohio State University USCMS EMU Meeting, FNAL, Oct. 20, 2005.

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.

IceCube: String 21 reconstruction Dmitry Chirkin, LBNL Presented by Spencer Klein LLH reconstruction algorithm Reconstruction of digital waveforms Muon.

Normal Distribution Section 2.2. Objectives  Introduce the Normal Distribution  Properties of the Standard Normal Distribution  Use Normal Distribution.

Outrigger Timing Calibration & Reconstruction Milagro – 11/17/03 Shoup – 1 Purpose: To incorporate outrigger hits in event angle fitting Additionally incorporated.

Point Source Search with 2007 & 2008 data Claudio Bogazzi AWG videconference 03 / 09 / 2010.

Mitglied der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Calibration of the COSY-TOF STT & pp Elastic Analysis Sedigheh Jowzaee IKP Group Talk 11 July 2013.

A Study of Proton-Proton Collisions at the LHC The Ohio State University - Task A.2 B.G. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, D. Fisher, J Gilmore, J.H. Gu, D. Larson,

Update on TOFSIM Status Bockjoo Kim Seoul National University 21 Nov 2002 MC MeetingOutline TOFSIM DocumentationTOFSIM Documentation Data and MC ComparisonData.

A simple formula for calculating the momentum spread from the longitudinal density distribution and RF form Recycler Meeting March 11, 2009 A. Shemyakin.

Studying the efficiency and the space resolution of resistive strips MicroMegas Marco Villa – CERN MAMMA meeting Tuesday, 13 th December 2011 CERN, Geneva.

 The zigzag readout board is divided into eight η-sectors; each sector has a length of ~12 cm and comprises 128 zigzag strips; zigzag strips run in radial.

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

Preliminary Slice Test Track Fitting S. Durkin Sept. 8, 2005 Analyze RunNum1007Evs0to49999.bin using /AnalysisUtilities look for tracks in two separate.

1 DT Local Reconstruction on CRAFT data Plots for approval CMS- Run meeting, 26/6/09 U.Gasparini, INFN & Univ.Padova on behalf of DT community [ n.b.:

Reconstructing energy from HERD beam test data Zheng QUAN IHEP 3 rd HERD work shop Xi’an, 20 Jan

Mitchell Naisbit University of Manchester A study of the decay using the BaBar detector Mitchell Naisbit – Elba.

Peterson xBSM Optics, Beam Size Calibration1 xBSM Beam Size Calibration Dan Peterson CesrTA general meeting introduction to the optics.

1J. Gu CERN CSC Meeting July 2008 DAQMB/FEBs Readiness for First Beam Jianui Gu The Ohio State University.

Check it out! : Standard Normal Calculations.

GE1/1-III GEM Cluster Size and Resolution Studies with the FNAL Beam Test Data Aiwu Zhang, Vallary Bhopatkar, Marcus Hohlmann Florida Institute of Technology.

Calice Meeting Argonne Muon identification with the hadron calorimeter Nicola D’Ascenzo.

1 M2-M5 Efficiency and Timing checks on 7TeV beam data Alessia, Roberta R.Santacesaria, April 23 rd, Muon Operation

3.1 Graphical Displays of Data. Example 1 Describe each distribution Uniform Mound Shaped U-Shaped / Bi-modal Skewed (left) Skewed (right)

( ATLAS was designed for LHC: L=10 34 cm -2 s -1 ) [ Now we expect 7.5 x instantaneous and 10 x integrated luminosity ] PILEUP: from ~30  >200 proton.

Particle identification by energy loss measurement in the NA61 (SHINE) experiment Magdalena Posiadala University of Warsaw.

Report on the Beam Test Analysis Satoru Uozumi Apr GLDCAL meeting Topics of this talk are: Comparison of various MIP calibration methods Some problems.

Paolo Massarotti Kaon meeting March 2007  ±  X    X  Time measurement use neutral vertex only in order to obtain a completely independent.

09/06/06Predrag Krstonosic - CALOR061 Particle flow performance and detector optimization.

Study of the Differential Luminosity Spectrum Measurement using Bhabha Events in 350GeV WANG Sicheng 王思丞 Supervisor: André Sailer.

28/11/02Guy Dewhirst1 Ultra Light Weights Method Guy Dewhirst Imperial College London.

Upsilon production and μ-tagged jets in DØ Horst D. Wahl Florida State University (DØ collaboration) 29 April 2005 DIS April to 1 May 2005 Madison.

SRS TIMING ANOMALY RD51 Mini-Week June 9, 2015 M. Phipps, BNL 1.

Tell me something mathematical about the picture?.

Update on A FB Myfanwy Liles μ-μ- μ+μ+ q q θ*θ*. A FB Reminder  Forward-Backward Asymmetry  Due to parity violation of the weak interaction  Interference.

Step 1 Analysis: Progress Towards the Emittance Paper

Plots for the performance paper

Ioannis Manthos Laboratory of Nuclear & Particle Physics

DT Local Reconstruction on CRAFT data

Roberto Chierici - CERN

Slice Test: Preliminary Data Analysis The Ohio State University

Transfer Line and CSC Rφ Reconstruction

p0 life time analysis: general method, updates and preliminary result

The Ohio State University CSC Detector Performance Group

Calculate Area with grid lines no grid lines. Calculate Area with grid lines no grid lines.

Adjusting the dcdrift.param

Rick Salcido Northern Illinois University For CALICE Collaboration

The Ohio State University CSC Detector Performance Group

Calculate Area with grid lines no grid lines. Calculate Area with grid lines no grid lines.

Report on p0 decay width: analysis updates

Which One Doesn’t Belong?

Resistive Plate Chambers performance with Cosmic Rays

LO: To measure and calculate perimeters of polygons

The Ohio State University USCMS EMU Meeting, FNAL, Oct. 29, 2004

Global Trigger Finds Correct BX

CAL crosstalk issues and their implications

Gatti Modeling of Charge Distribution Data from ME1/1 HV Run 3.1 kV

Presentation transcript:

DAQMB/FEBs Readiness for First Beam Why is CSC Resolution Insensitive to Cross Talk? S. Durkin Nov. 10, 2009 A Theoretical Gatti Calculation using Maple DAQMB/FEBs Readiness for First Beam Jianui Gu The Ohio State University

Review How to handle crosstalk in reconstruction? Cross talk (blue) extracted from the data. Cross talk (red) was measured by fitting the Gatti distribution to test beam muon data. Notice the offset of about 3% Convolution for pulsed strip (black) and adjacent strip (blue) for a given layer in a ME2/2 chamber. The red curve is a fit to the peak. Reference: Determining the CSC Cross Talk using the Buckeye External Pulser. S. Durkin, J. Gilmore, F. Geurts April 26, 2005

Yes, the Cross Talk is Treated Correctly Time Bin Peak-1 Time Bin Peak Time Bin Peak+1 Q/(QL+QC+QR) Hit Position (Strips) Correct Cross Talk Correct Cross Talk Gatti Formula Cut on strip width: 0.85 to 0.95 cm

A Theoretical Gatti Calculation using Maple Gatti Induced Charge Formula ME3/2: r=h/w h=0.476 w=0.9 Step 1: Generate Charges on Strips as function of strip peak charge position x L-left M-middle R-right

Calculate Cross Talk Smearing Step 2: Apply Cross talk in three time bins xt(1) xt(2) xt(3) Time tpeak-50nsec tpeak tpeak+50nsec Cross Talk 9.0% 5.75% -2.5% Bin 1 Bin 2 Bin 3 unsmeared Assumed same for all strips x(strips)

Time Bin Charge Addition Weighting Step 3: Add three time bins properly weighed as a function of time Pulse Charge as function of time (5 pole semigaussian) w(1) w(2) w(3) Time tpeak-50nsec tpeak tpeak+50nsec Charge weight 0.704 1.000 0.808 Raw Q CrossTalk XQ x(strips)

The Answer Step 4: Calculate ratios used in RecHitD look-up table No Cross Talk: With Cross Talk: x(strips) RX R R-RX Maximum Difference 50 m x(strips)

Both estimation methods have been shown to give the same resolution. Qualitative Understanding The Look-up Table Ratio (QR-QL)/(QM-QL) is Purposely Insensitive to Cross Talk: Center of Strip (x=0) Between Strips (x=0.5) QL QM QR QL QM QR QM=QR QR=QL Symmetry XQR=XQL XQM=XQR R=RX=0 R=RX=1 Gatti Fitting is sensitive to shape while the Loop-up Table Method isn’t. Both estimation methods have been shown to give the same resolution.

Bibliography A paper describing this calculation include links to the maple scripts are available at: http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~durkin/talks/CrossTalkSensitivityPaper.pdf