Status of Trigger Rate Studies Analysis Group meeting 3 March 2003 D. Wren S. Ritz.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
UK egamma meeting, Sept 22, 2005M. Wielers, RAL1 Status of Electron Triggers Rates/eff for different triggers Check on physics channels Crack region, comparison.
Advertisements

Online Monitoring and plane checkout Online monitoring is used at the mine for: –sanity checks - “is everything working” –diagnostics - rates, hot/dead.
Final state study Jaewon Park University of Rochester Vittorio Paolone University of Pittsburgh MINERvA Collaboration Meeting, Sep 13-15, 2007.
S. Ritz 1 Hardware Trigger Throttle Issues Context: the triggers Purpose of throttle on TKR trigger Earlier design using TKR geographic information The.
GLAST LAT ProjectIA Workshop 6 – Feb28,2006 Preliminary Studies on the dependence of Arrival Time distributions in the LAT using CAL Low Energy Trigger.
Update: Onboard Filter & Ground Software Integration N. Golpayegani S. Ritz D. Wren Analysis Group Meeting; 28 July 2003.
GLAST LAT Project Apr 1, 2005 E. do Couto e Silva 1/31 Overview of End to End Runs Eduardo do Couto e Silva April 1, 2005 ( not it is not a joke, we finally.
Sources for the Data Challenge Toby Burnett, Theodore Hierath, Sean Robinson SLAC Workshop 15 July 2003.
Status of Trigger Rate Studies Analysis Group meeting 27 January 2003 D. Wren S. Ritz.
S. Ritz1 Checking Out What is Checked In  Need to optimize balance of checking between users and developers. –infuse more of a culture of detailed checking.
David WrenDC1 Closeout, 13 February OnboardFilter Update Work done by: Navid Golpayegani J.J. Russell David Wren Data Challenge I Closeout Meeting,
Simulation / Reconstruction Working group Toby Burnett University of Washington Jan 2000 T.
GLAST LAT Project S. Ritz 1 GLAST Large Area Telescope: Adding Converter to the Blank TKR Planes? Bill Atwood, Tune Kamae, Steve Ritz 4 September 2002.
GLAST LAT Project LAT Instrument Analysis Meeting – May 26, 2006 Hiro Tajima, TKR Efficiency Trending 1 GLAST Large Area Telescope: TKR Efficiency Trending.
1 May 27, 2005 Comparison tower A data and Montecarlo OVERVIEW Comparison of MC (EM- v 4r060302p18 ) and tower A data using the “baseline” run (Run )
GLAST LAT ProjectDOE/NASA CD3-Critical Design Review, May 12, 2003 S. Ritz Document: LAT-PR Section 03 Science Requirements and Instrument Design.
Onboard Filter Update Performance after updated cuts David Wren 26 January 2004.
GLAST LAT Project Analysis Meeting March 22, 2004 E. do Couto e Silva 1/8 LAT Instrument Test Analysis Eduardo do Couto e Silva March 23, 2004.
Status of Trigger Rate Studies Analysis Group meeting 9 December 2002 D. Wren S. Ritz.
GLAST LAT Project17 August, 2001 S. Ritz 0 GLAST Large Area Telescope: Status of System-level Performance Simulations UPDATE (to 26 July presentation)
GLAST background review dec Simulating rates: the big picture Incoming rate into the 6 m 2 sphere: is it right? Corresponding trigger rate: implies.
GLAST LAT ProjectIA Workshop 6 – Feb27,2006 S. Ritz Backgrounds and Trigger Rates 1 Backgrounds and Trigger Rates on Orbit S. Ritz with many contributions.
GLAST Simulations Theodore E. Hierath Louisiana State University August 20, 2001.
Analysis meeting 11July05 - T. Burnett 1 Status of the Background Review DC2 prep meeting: Switch to CRflux package by Mizuno for charged particles, Earth.
Status of Onboard Filter & Ground Software Integration Work done by Navid Golpayegani Steve Ritz J.J. Russell David Wren SLAC Ground Software Workshop:
Module CC3002 Post Implementation Issues Lecture for Week 6 AY 2013 Spring.
Simulation of RPC avalanche signal for a Digital Hadron Calorimeter (DHCAL) Lei Xia ANL - HEP.
O After integration and test at SLAC and GSFC, BFEM was shipped to the National Scientific Balloon Facility (NSBF) at Palestine, Texas. The experiment.
T. Burnett1 GLAST LAT ProjectDOE/NASA Baseline-Preliminary Design Review, January 9, 2002 SAS Software: Sources Detector geometry model Simulation Event.
NA60 Group meeting, 31 March 2005, Markus Keil1 Update on the pixel efficiencies in the Indium run 2003.
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.
Geant4 for GLAST BFEM -Comparison with Distributions in BFEM Data – T. Mizuno, H. Mizushima, S. Ogata, Y. Fukazawa (Hiroshima/SLAC) M. Roterman, P. Valtersson.
Draft Policy Return to 12 Month Supply and Reset Trigger to /8 in Free Pool.
T Iteration Demo Software Trickery I2 Iteration
HLT Kalman Filter Implementation of a Kalman Filter in the ALICE High Level Trigger. Thomas Vik, UiO.
Box Plots March 20, th grade. What is a box plot? Box plots are used to represent data that is measured and divided into four equal parts. These.
Comparison between BFEM data and G4 simulation October 18, 2001 Balloon Analysis VRVS meeting T. Mizuno, H. Mizushima, Y. Fukazawa, and T. Kamae
22 th October 2010 IWLC Sources working group J. Clarke, T. Omori, L. Rinolfi, A. Variola Summary of Sources working group WG1 with contributions from.
Fundamental Digital Electronics
X. Chen 1 GLAST LAT Project EM data analyses meeting X. Chen 1 Software infrastructure used in EM data analyses Xin Chen November 19, 2003.
Throttle Studies David Wren Analysis Group Meeting 22 March 2004.
1 Study of Data from the GLAST Balloon Prototype Based on a Geant4 Simulator Tsunefumi Mizuno February 22, Geant4 Work Shop The GLAST Satellite.
Feb. 3, 2007IFC meeting1 Beam test report Ph. Bruel on behalf of the beam test working group Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope.
Computer Model Simulation STEPHEN GOWDY FNAL 30th March 2015 Computing Model Simulation 1.
After integration and test at SLAC and GSFC, BFEM was shipped to the National Scientific Balloon Facility (NSBF) at Palestine, Texas. The experiment was.
O After the integration and test at SLAC/GSFC, BFEM was shipped to National Scientific Balloon Facility (NSBF) at Palestine, Texas. The experiments was.
Minerva Test Beam 2 Status Geoff Savage for the Test Beam 2 Team March 23, /23/2015AEM - Minerva Test Beam 2 Status1.
MAUS Status A. Dobbs CM43 29 th October Contents MAUS Overview Infrastructure Geometry and CDB Detector Updates CKOV EMR KL TOF Tracker Global Tracking.
Random Number Testing and RDM
GLAST LAT Project SE Test Planning Dec 7, 2004 E. do Couto e Silva 1/27 Trigger and SVAC Tests During LAT integration Su Dong, Eduardo do Couto e Silva.
An update on ECAL simulations
Acd Veto Latching The Acd front end electronics generate a veto primitive when a discriminator goes above threshold. But. The signal is split: One path.
Full Sim Status Estel Perez 27 July 2017.
IC40 Flares analysis update Mike Baker PS call, Jan
Fabio, Francesco, Francesco and Nicola INFN and University Bari
Update on Muon Flux Underground Using Geant4 Simulation
Calibrating the CAL in flight: Galactic Cosmic Ray Calibration
The Surface Muon Source
Hadronic Shower Structure in WHCAL Prototype
CS2100 Computer Organisation
More Specific Announcements in BGP
Preliminary Results on Non-Projective HCal Simulations
Mokka vs. LCDG4 Comparison
Overview Goal Study GEM variables in SVAC ntuple
DESY drift chambers efficiency and track reconstruction
Summary of dE/dx studies in silicon and MS in muon system
Background sources update
August 19th 2013 Alexandre Camsonne
Update of G4 simulation -- Development of Cosmic-Ray generator --
Analysis of GLAST Balloon Experiment Data
Presentation transcript:

Status of Trigger Rate Studies Analysis Group meeting 3 March 2003 D. Wren S. Ritz

2 Update from Jan 27 meeting Jan 27: Cremeavg broken Now: Cremeavg fixed* Jan 27: Galactic electrons not implemented Now: Galactic electrons implemented* Jan 27:Backgndavgpdr was low in rootplot Now:Fixed* All fluxes are now implemented, and all look okay in rootplot (except for electronavg). However, the trigger rates are presenting mysteries. *(Thanks to Sean and Toby)

3 Backgndavgpdr flux plots Last meeting we had this (GlastRelease v0r3) Now we have this (GR v1r0, FluxSvc v6r2) Which almost matches this (pdrApp) Galactic electrons implemented (lavender), but flux is low

4 backgndavgpdr fluxes from rootplot Flux Type Integrated Flux (kHz/m^2) in GlastRelease Integrated Flux (kHz/m^2) in pdrApp backgndavgpdr 4.2 Breakdown: cremeavg0.94 albedo_proton_avg1.2 albedo_gamma0.92 albedo_electronpositron avg_total albedo_electronpositron _total 1.1

5 Current Backgndavgpdr L1T Rates – cremeavg is low TotalCremeavgalbedo_p_avgalbedo_gammaelectronavgalbedo_e+e-avg GlastRelease L1T rate (Hz) L1T (fract) NA0.38 TKR rate (Hz) CAL-LO rate (Hz) CAL-LO and NOT TKR CAL-HI rate (Hz) CAL-HI and NOT TKR pdrApp* L1T rate (Hz) L1T (fract) L1T Percent Difference GlastRelease/pdrApp L1T GlastRelease under by13%4%22%29%64%13% *Known to be high due to old CAL-LO trigger

6 backgndmaxpdr flux plots Good agreement between pdrApp and GlastRelease pdrAppGlastRelease

7 backgndmaxpdr fluxes from rootplot Flux Type Integrated Flux (kHz/m^2) in GlastRelease/Gleam Integrated Flux (kHz/m^2) in pdrApp backgndmaxpdr 9.9 chimemax4.2 albedo_proton_max2.6 albedo_gamma0.92 electronmax0.043 albedo_electronpositron _total 2.2 numbers match

8 Current Backgndmaxpdr L1T Rates – chimemax fixed GlastReleaseTotalchimemaxalbedo_p_maxalbedo_gammaelectronmaxalbedo_e+e- L1T rate (Hz) L1T (fract) TKR rate (Hz) CAL-LO rate (Hz) CAL-LO and NOT TKR CAL-HI rate (Hz) CAL-HI and NOT TKR pdrApp Flux (kHz/m^2) L1T rate (Hz) L1T (fract) TKR rate (Hz)11221 CAL-LO rate (Hz)5297 CAL-LO and NOT TKR1913 CAL-HI rate (Hz)84 CAL-HI and NOT TKR10 Percent Difference GlastRelease/pdrApp L1T GlastRelease under by18%5%18%26%-16% (16% high) 18%

9 L1T Rate Recap BackgndavgpdrTotalcremeavgalbedo_proton_avgalbedo_gammaelectronavgalbedo_e-e+_avg GlastRelease is under by 13%4%22%29%64%13% BackgndmaxpdrTotalchimemaxalbedo_proton_maxalbedo_gammaelectronmaxalbedo_e-e+_max GlastRelease is under by 18%5%18%26%-16% (16% high) 18% All rates are lower than pdrApp except for galactic electrons at maximum. Rates are not uniformly lower. Instead, they differ by source.

10 Summary GlastRelease is still presenting trigger rate mysteries. –All fluxes are implemented, and integrated fluxes look good (except electronavg). However, trigger rates are lower than pdrApp (except electronmax), and not by a uniform amount. Why did the rates go down when all but one integrated flux looks okay? Possible factors: –The TKR trigger was changed –The CAL-LO trigger is different –Digitization was changed –Move from Gismo to GEANT4 –For electronavg, the flux is half what of expected Fixing this would likely raise the trigger rate (which is 64% too low) –Is there a problem with timekeeping? Compared simulated elapsed time per event for both versions. No, it matches to within 0.4%. That’s not it.

11 What we (and others) are investigating now –Looking at TKR rates and number of hits The CAL-LO trigger change (~15% effect) does not impact TKR rate. Looking at TKR is a better gauge than the overall L1T. –Possible effects of digitization changes (Leon is looking into this)