Test Beam 2003 Some Preliminary Results CMS Week Sep-2003.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Performance of MB4 CHAMBERS GIORGIA MILA Sez. di Torno.
Advertisements

Level-1 Trigger CMS Week, Brussels 14 Sep C.-E. Wulz Deputy Trigger Project Manager Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna Prepared with slides/material.
Test beam 2001 Results M.C. Fouz Muon Week, CERN Nov 01.
CMS week mar 051 Results of the Analysis of 2004 DT Test Beam C. Battilana and S. Marcellini – INFN Bologna Trigger Performance: -Single Muons -Di-Muons.
TRACK DICTIONARY (UPDATE) RESOLUTION, EFFICIENCY AND L – R AMBIGUITY SOLUTION Claudio Chiri MEG meeting, 21 Jan 2004.
Calibration for different trigger sources (DT,CSC,RPC) S.Bolognesi for the Torino group (with a big help from M. Dalla Valle) DT Cosmic Analysis meeting.
SCT Offline Monitor Measuring Module Hit Efficiencies Helen Hayward University of Liverpool.
Status on Testbeam Analysis Jianchun Wang Syracuse University VELO meeting, August 28, 2007.
Progress on B-tagging Efficiency Monica Dunford May 22 nd, 2007.
Alex Moiseev NASA/GSFC 12/16/2005 Some ACD Calibration issues I.ACD mip peak monitoring 1. ACD mip peak monitoring requires the measurements to be done.
SCT offline monitoring Helen Hayward. outline Results using Else’s new non-misaligned data (dig.trtbarrel_1111*root) Looking at efficiency dependence.
K.Hoepfner, RWTH Aachen IIIAQuality Control at Aachen Production site1 (Selected Items on) Quality Control at Aachen.
MINIDRFIT BEAM TEST APPLY IN-LAB UNIVERSAL CORRECTION EIC Tracking Meeting Oct. 27, 2013 B.Azmoun, M.Phipps, BNL.
Chamber Construction QC at CIEMAT B. de la Cruz CIEMAT (Madrid) CMS Week June 2002.
Commissioning data are taken with individual chambers TP data autotriggered Cosmic rays data  ( different configuration) Different cosmic track angle.
A.meneguzzo, 03 april 2002 LNL- MB3 chamber test with cosmic triggers Some results on the tests performed on the MB3 chambers produced in Legnaro are presented.
Muon alignment with Cosmics: Real and Monte Carlo data S.Vecchi, S.Pozzi INFN Ferrara 37th Software Week CERN June 2009.
Preliminary comparison of ATLAS Combined test-beam data with G4: pions in calorimetric system Andrea Dotti, Per Johansson Physics Validation of LHC Simulation.
U.GaspariniCMS week, 11/06/021 MB3 internal alignment study using cosmic muons - 14 MB3 chambers assembled in Legnaro have been extensively tested using.
RPC Cosmic Rays Test in Naples Paolo Iengo Atlas RPC Group Napoli ( M. Alviggi, V. Canale, M. Caprio, G. Carlino,R. de Asmundis, M. Della Pietra, D. della.
Response of AMANDA-II to Cosmic Ray Muons and study of Systematics Newt,Paolo and Teresa.
N. Saoulidou Fermilab 1 Status & Update of track reconstruction in the Near Detector N. Saoulidou, Fermilab
21 Jun 2010Paul Dauncey1 First look at FNAL tracking chamber alignment Paul Dauncey, with lots of help from Daniel and Angela.
HLT DT Calibration (on Data Challenge Dedicated Stream) G. Cerminara N. Amapane M. Giunta CMS Muon Meeting.
7 May 2009Paul Dauncey1 Tracker alignment issues Paul Dauncey.
I was asked by the Physics Dept of Padova to make a design for the Muon detection In CMS in fall At that time CMS was considering two option one.
CMS WEEK – MARCH06 REVIEW OF MB4 COMMISSIONING DATA Giorgia Mila
© Imperial College LondonPage 1 Tracking & Ecal Positional/Angular Resolution Hakan Yilmaz.
A. Meneguzzo Padova University & INFN Validation and Performance of the CMS Barrel Muon Drift Chambers with Cosmic Rays A. Meneguzzo Padova University.
A Clustering Algorithm for LumiCal Halina Abramowicz, Ronen Ingbir, Sergey Kananov, Aharon Levy, Iftach Sadeh Tel Aviv University DESY Collaboration High.
N. Saoulidou, Fermilab, MINOS Collaboration Meeting N. Saoulidou, Fermilab, ND/CC Parallel Session, MINOS Collaboration Meeting R1.18.
BMC Cosmic Ray Test Stand Update, Dec. 2001, Steve Ahlen - Boston Univ. Gas system installed on Mod-0 (EIL-1) January 2001 Initial electrical tests January.
Claudio Grandi INFN-Bologna CHEP 2000Abstract B 029 Object Oriented simulation of the Level 1 Trigger system of a CMS muon chamber Claudio Grandi INFN-Bologna.
Measurement of the Charge Ratio of Cosmic Muons using CMS Data M. Aldaya, P. García-Abia (CIEMAT-Madrid) On behalf of the CMS Collaboration Sector 10 Sector.
Active polarimeter simulation Suguru Shimizu Osaka University Sep. 1, 2007 JPARC TREK Collaboration meeting at Saskatchewan.
The Detector Performance Study for the Barrel Section of the ATLAS Semiconductor Tracker (SCT) with Cosmic Rays Yoshikazu Nagai, Kazuhiko Hara (Univ. of.
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.:
Abstract Beam Test of a Large-area GEM Detector Prototype for the Upgrade of the CMS Muon Endcap System V. Bhopatkar, M. Hohlmann, M. Phipps, J. Twigger,
Beam Test of a Large-Area GEM Detector Prototype for the Upgrade of the CMS Muon Endcap System Vallary Bhopatkar M. Hohlmann, M. Phipps, J. Twigger, A.
The Detector Performance Study for the Barrel Section of the ATLAS Semiconductor Tracker (SCT) with Cosmic Rays Yoshikazu Nagai (Univ. of Tsukuba) For.
Preliminary results on DT T0s in beam collisions J. Santaolalla, J. Alcaraz (+ help/suggestions from C. Battilana, C. Fouz)
DN/d  and dN/dp T analysis status Gabor Veres for the working group QCD meeting, Jan 12, 2010.
Penny Kasper Fermilab Heavy Quarkonium Workshop 21 June Upsilon production DØ Penny Kasper Fermilab (DØ collaboration) 29 June 2006 Heavy Quarkonium.
The energy spectrum from the KASCADE- Grande muon data (Update) Juan Carlos Arteaga-Velázquez for the KASCADE-Grande Collaboration Institute of Physics.
Study of 1D Hit Error Assignment Marco Terranova, Filippo Pisano, N. Amapane, G. Cerminara.
1 HLT (confirmation, generic)  Idea Reconstruct only a fraction tracks In hand:  better PT estimation  signal (secondary) vertices  Data TDR DaVinci.
Trigger efficicency on double tracks Trigger efficiency on isolated tracks Final results of the Trigger Test on the 25ns beam Bx NUMBER Fraction of Triggers.
Giuseppe Ruggiero CERN Straw Chamber WG meeting 07/02/2011 Spectrometer Reconstruction: Pattern recognition and Efficiency 07/02/ G.Ruggiero - Spectrometer.
Preliminary results of  separation from data tracks 1.Outline 2.Comparison of cosmics in both bricks  and  tracks 4.Separation with NN 5.Conclusion,
Manqi Ruan Discussing & Support: Roman, Francois, Vincent, Supervisor: Z. ZHANG (LAL) & Y. GAO (Tsinghua)) DQ Check for CERN Test.
Plots of RPC performance G. Cattani, University of Rome “Tor Vergata” & INFN Roma 2 on behalf of ATLAS Muon Collaboration.
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.
Pattern recognition with the triplet method Fabrizio Cei INFN & University of Pisa MEG Meeting, Hakata October /10/20131 Fabrizio Cei.
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.
Comparison of algorithms for hit reconstruction in the DTs: Test of calibration procedures for t trig and drift velocity on Test Beam data Test of calibration.
Michele Faucci Giannelli
Relative alignment of LXE and DCH using AIF
S.Movchan Straw prototype beam test into the NA48 infrastructure
FURTHER STUDIES ON COMMISSIONING DATA
LKr inefficiency measurement
Tracking System at CERN 06 and 07 test beams
Validation and Performance
Analysis Test Beam Pixel TPC
SAC/IRC data analysis Venelin Kozhuharov for the photon veto working group NA62 photon veto meeting
DESY drift chambers efficiency and track reconstruction
The energy spectrum from the KASCADE-Grande muon data
J/   analysis: results for ICHEP
Calibration of DT-MTCC data
Status of DT Local Trigger Commissioning
Beam properties for run
Presentation transcript:

Test Beam 2003 Some Preliminary Results CMS Week Sep-2003

 Trigger “quality” for normal incidence  TRAC0 resolution (position and angle) for different angles Outlook Trigger (BTI & TRACO) information from the output of TSS-TSM is checked using tracks obtained from chamber TDC hits ( Trigger Configuration: SET STD-DEF)

Selection of “good” events By cutting on  2 No trigger for some “good” events HLT correspond to “good” hit times Most of LLT correspond with delta rays TSS-TSM: BTI Trigger quality vs Meantimers Taking out  -rays (by cutting on  2 ) NO BTI trigger events are concentrated mainly near Ibeams but still ~0.65% out of Ibeams. Trigger on Correct BX Tracks with hits in the 4 layers Meantimers from SL 

TSS-TSM: BTI Trigger quality vs track fit quality (I) Fitted track “quality” redefined: If track of N-hits has  2 > 2 the ¨worst¨ hit is removed and refitted with N-1 hits. Selection of N´= 4 hit tracks 2 Cases studied depending on the number of hits per cell in track A) At least 1 cell with 2 hits (Multi-hit) B) ONLY 1 hit per cell (Single-hit)

TSS-TSM: BTI Trigger quality vs track fit quality (II) TSS-TSM: BTI Trigger quality vs track fit quality (II) Total Trigger efficiency:  0.08 HLT:  0.12 LLT: 5.14  0.12 Total Trigger efficiency:  0.03 HLT:  0.04 LLT: 1.01  0.03 Trigger on Correct BX A) Multi-hitB) Single - hit

Selection of “good” events on SL PHI2 based on: Hits on 4 layers Good fitted track (cut on  2 ) Selection of Events on SL PHI2 High Trigger Quality “expected”

TSS-TSM: TRACO quality vs Meantimers HL triggers correspond mostly with delta rays There is a small fraction of events with “good MT” and no HH trigger Previous events selected on SL phi2 and track with hits in 4 layers on SL phi1 HH = 89.2 % HL = 7.5 % HH = 89.2 % HL = 7.5 % Triggers on Correct BX

Selection of “good” events on SL PHI2 AND SLPHI1 Hits on 4 layers Good fitted track (cut on  2 ) HL 1.7% Ho,Hi0.9% LL,Lo,Li 0.1% NO TRACO0.3% Statistics for “good” events on both SLs HH97% No correlations for “no HH” with respect to MT values

No HH events No correlations for missing TRACO events with respect to chamber position.

Dependence of TSS-TSM: TRACO Trigger quality with fit qualities (I) Again fitted track “quality” redefined 2 Cases studied depending on the number of hits per cell in track A) At least 1 cell with 2 hits (Multi-hit) B) ONLY 1 hit per cell (Single-hit) HH HL No trigger

Dependence of TSS-TSM: TRACO Trigger quality with fit qualities (I) Trigger on Correct BX A) Multi-hit B) Single - hit Quality of reconstructed Track & x & x + 4 Total Trig. Eff    0.67 Qual  expect    0.88 Qual  expect    0.88 A) Multi-hit Quality of reconstructed Track & x & x + 4 Total Trig. Eff    0.13 Qual  expect    0.15 Qual  expect    0.15 B) Single - hit 4 + 4

A first look at 2-  Trigger Selection of 2-  events: 2 fitted tracks 4+4 on chamber && TRACO HH, HL, LL Position of the best track different from TRACO position THEN We look for a second muon on TRACO compatible with the chamber track & HH Quality of the second muon Quality of first TRACO muon HHHH,HL,LL Total Trig. Eff. for 2 nd muon   0.50 Qual  expect   1.46

Reconstruction of tracks TRACO vs Chamber Selection of “golden” tracks on chamber and TRACO: Chamber: Tracks with hits in 4 layers on SL PHI1 with  2 < 0.6 & Tracks with hits in 4 layers on SL PHI2 with  2 < 0.6 TRACO: HH triggers on correct BX

TRACO PHI coordenate correlated with chamber position Trigger Position = 1.06 x Chamber + offset Different offsets for different regions (TRACO’s) TRACO vs Chamber positions

TRACO: Position resolution for different angles TRACO resolution in position similar for all angles: ~ mm Different region of cells on SL PHI2

Angle Reconstruction Angle Reconstruction Traco–Chamber angle  = 1 mrad  =-4 mrad  =-1 mrad  = 3 mrad  = 7 mrad  = 3 mrad Angle resolution ~ deg (~ 5-7 mrad)

Summary Preliminary results show a good trigger performance for TRACO and BTI There is a clear correlation between chamber performance and trigger response (as expected ! ) Data indicate trigger “intrinsic inefficiencies” (good chamber track but no trigger) lower than 1%. TRACO track resolution (for HH) at different angles: ~ mm ~ mrad are in good agreement with the “theoretical” expectations