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.

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.

US CMS H1/H2 Issues1 H C A L Dan is interested in the calibration of the HCAL for jets. He defines “R” as the measured energy of a pion, probably in ADC.

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

1 Calice ECAL Meeting UCL 8/06/09David Ward Thoughts on transverse energy profile for e/m showers David Ward  We have work from G.Mavromanolakis on this.

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

April 19th, 2010Philippe Doublet (LAL) Hadronic showers in the SiW ECAL (with 2008 FNAL data) Philippe Doublet.

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

1 Calice Meeting 20/9/06David Ward What did we learn from DESY 2005 run? DESY run May CERN run August Data/MC comparisons for ECAL.

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

1 N. Davidson E/p single hadron energy scale check with minimum bias events Jet Note 8 Meeting 15 th May 2007.

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.

The TA Energy Scale Douglas Bergman Rutgers University Aspen UHECR Workshop April 2007.

1 Hadronic In-Situ Calibration of the ATLAS Detector N. Davidson The University of Melbourne.

1 N. Davidson, E. Barberio E/p single hadron energy scale check with minimum bias event Hadronic Calibration Workshop 26 th -27 th April 2007.

Analysis Meeting – April 17 '07 Status and plan update for single hadron scale check with minimum bias events N. Davidson.

In order to acquire the full physics potential of the LHC, the ATLAS electromagnetic calorimeter must be able to efficiently identify photons and electrons.

1 Calice Analysis Meeting 13/02/07David Ward Just a collection of thoughts to guide us in planning electron analysis In order to end up with a coherent.

1 N. Davidson Calibration with low energy single pions Tau Working Group Meeting 23 rd July 2007.

1 Calice UK s/w meeting RHUL 24/1/06D.R. Ward David Ward Have previously reported on comparison of Feb’05 DESY data with Geant4 Monte Carlos. Issues with.

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.

Pion test beam from KEK: momentum studies Data provided by Toho group: 2512 beam tracks D. Duchesneau April 27 th 2011 Track  x Track  y Base track positions.

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

Interactions of pions in the Si-W ECAL prototype Towards a paper Naomi van der Kolk.

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.

Energy Flow Technique and *where I am Lily Have been looking at the technique developed by Mark Hodgkinson, Rob Duxfield of Sheffield. Here is a summary.

Preliminary Study of CC-Inclusive Events in the P0D using Global Reconstruction Rajarshi Das (w/ Walter Toki) Nu-Mu Prelim. Meeting Dec 2010 CSU.

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

Isabelle Wingerter-Seez (LAPP) ATLAS Overview Week - Stockholm 1 LARG H8 combined run: Analysis status Data/MC comparison Energy Reconstruction.

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

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

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

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

News from Jet/Etmiss Monica. Jet/Etmiss meeting yesterday (25/5) at P&P week – Mostly review of conf notes for ICHEP10 – Good review to check where we.

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,

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

Combined Longitudinal Weight Extraction and Intercalibration S.Paganis ( Wisconsin ) with K.Loureiro ( Wisconsin ), T.Carli ( CERN ) and input from F.Djama(Marseille),

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

Marco DelmastroCALOR Recent results of the ATLAS combined test-beam1 Recent results of the ATLAS Barrel Combined Test-beam (on behalf of the ATLAS.

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.

Cedar and pre-Daikon Validation ● CC PID parameter based CC sample selections with Birch, Cedar, Carrot and pre-Daikon. ● Cedar validation for use with.

Comments on systematics of corrected MB distributions Karel Safarik (presented by A. Morsch) Meeting of the Minimum Bias and Underlying Event WG CERN,

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.

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

Update on Diffractive Dijets Hardeep Bansil University of Birmingham 12/07/2013.

The ATLAS Electromagnetic and Hadronic End-Cap Calorimeter in a Combined Beam Test Tamara Hughes University of Victoria WRNPPC 2004.

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

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

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.

Energy Reconstruction in the CALICE Fe-AHCal in Analog and Digital Mode Fe-AHCal testbeam CERN 2007 Coralie Neubüser CALICE Collaboration meeting Argonne,

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

Mark Dorman UCL/RAL MINOS WITW June 05 An Update on Using QE Events to Estimate the Neutrino Flux and Some Preliminary Data/MC Comparisons for a QE Enriched.

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

1 Dead material correction status. Alexei Maslennikov, Guennadi Pospelov. Bratislava/Kosice/MPI Calorimeter Meeting. 8-December Problems with DM.

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

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.

EM Linearity using calibration constants from Geant4

2000 Diffuse Analysis Jessica Hodges, Gary Hill, Jodi Cooley

Rick Salcido Northern Illinois University For CALICE Collaboration

Presentation transcript:

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

19-Apr-2005LAr response to pions2 Analysis ( data+MC)  Run: GeV pions Fully combined, have shown previously problems in LAr rec. energy  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.  MC New “pythonized” version (powerful) Charge collection corrections Tried to get “correct” beam profile … ADC2MEV in Digitization step (parabola is the default)

19-Apr-2005LAr response to pions3 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

19-Apr-2005LAr response to pions4 ADC -> MeV for MC and Data (10.0.2) Monte Carlo Data Differences at present : 1.Difference in the Sampling Fractions 2.Different noise normalization due to ADC2MeV (small)

19-Apr-2005LAr response to pions5 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

19-Apr-2005LAr response to pions6 How to get the SF for Data (an example) SF(Presampler <0.8)=t*W/e/1250 = SF(Accordion <0.8)=t*W/e/ =

19-Apr-2005LAr response to pions7 How to get the SF for MC  Since the Sampling Fractions are the same as for ATLAS Example, for Accordion eta<0.8, SF=  They are calculated (Geant4) assuming no upstream material and compensating for charge collection effects (ON by default) Eventually we must port them to the data stream, as part of the ADC2MEV factor

19-Apr-2005LAr response to pions8 Data: 3x3 LAr vs Total tile Energy Electrons

19-Apr-2005LAr response to pions9 Beam Profiles Can do better Data MC

19-Apr-2005LAr response to pions10 Cleaning cuts: any biases?  For reconstructed energy comparisons: E(MC) = Erec * SFmc/SFdata  For visible energy comparisons: E(MC) = Erec * SFmc E(data) = Erec * SFdata  muTag to remove muons  Etile+ELAr MIP cuts to remove muons  Etile>2GeV, to remove electrons (crude) Don’t want to use shower shape cuts yet (under study) Possible Long electron tail I studied the region Etile<2GeV and ELar<14GeV and I see small discrepancies (checking also with electrons)

19-Apr-2005LAr response to pions11 Known biases:  Tile MC has no noise.  For data a LAr drift time assumption is made to get the SF  LAr MC has noise but I haven’t checked how representative is of the data  Cuts on LAr energy cause a bias when scale and shape are different  Parabolic fit at low energies? ...

19-Apr-2005LAr response to pions12 MuTag: removes a portion of muons

19-Apr-2005LAr response to pions13 LAr Energy after simple cuts Data MC

19-Apr-2005LAr response to pions14 Zoom in the MIP region (before cuts) Uncorrected MC Corrected MC for Sampling Fraction (Rear situation that data looks better than MC!)

19-Apr-2005LAr response to pions15 Zoom in the “MIP” region (after cuts) MC is broader, slow rising: due to more noise or the parabola or …?

19-Apr-2005LAr response to pions16 Visible Energy per LAr Sampling Good Agreement All Samplings have problems in the noise region; but agreement is good away from it. Normalization away from the noise region

19-Apr-2005LAr response to pions17 Total visible Energy (LAr) Normalization away from the noise region

19-Apr-2005LAr response to pions18Summary  Reasonable agreement between Data and MC: Away from the noise/MIP region After properly correcting MC for Sampling Fraction difference (however it is data SF that needs to changed in ATHENA !)  Discrepancy between DATA and MC for very small depositions. Distributions around 0 Energy look different. It is possible that MC noise is larger (at least for the middle).  Fully contained pions are being checked together with electrons I am seeing a discrepancy in this run but I’m still checking