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 135000894)

Slides:



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

1 Search for the Flavor-Changing Neutral-Current Decay,   → p     HyangKyu Park University of Michigan, Ann Arbor for the HyperCP collaboration.
Reconstruction Issues in Cosmic Ray Muons Maury Goodman/Gavril Giurgiu & Jurgen Reichenbacher.
22/5/2011 Particle-ID and Tracking performance in CLIC_ILD1/27 CLIC_ILD particle identification and tracking performance J. Nardulli This talk in 2 parts:
Final state study Jaewon Park University of Rochester Vittorio Paolone University of Pittsburgh MINERvA Collaboration Meeting, Sep 13-15, 2007.
Surplus Hits Ratio Leon R. C&A Meeting Oct. 31, 2001.
1 N. Davidson E/p single hadron energy scale check with minimum bias events Jet Note 8 Meeting 15 th May 2007.
GLAST LAT ProjectIA Workshop 6 – Feb28,2006 Preliminary Studies on the dependence of Arrival Time distributions in the LAT using CAL Low Energy Trigger.
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.
SVAC/ISOCInstrument Analysis Workshop, February 27, 2006 Anders W. Borgland 1 Overview Of LAT Data Taking Anders W. Borgland Science Verification, Analysis.
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.
CSC Note Jet 8 Meeting – April 11 '07 Status and plan for single hadron scale check with minimum bias events N. Davidson The University of Melbourne.
Tracker Reconstruction SoftwarePerformance Review, Oct 16, 2002 Core Software “Performance Review” TkrRecon How do we know the Tracking is working? GLAST.
1 First look at new MC files First look at reconstruction output from the newly- generated “mock-data” MC files. –These contain the following improvements:
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.
Status of EMC background data Tim West University of Manchester.
A simulation study of the rapidity distributions of leptons from W boson decays at ATLAS Laura Gilbert.
Analysis Meeting – April 17 '07 Status and plan update for single hadron scale check with minimum bias events N. Davidson.
TB & Simulation results Jose E. Garcia & M. Vos. Introduction SCT Week – March 03 Jose E. Garcia TB & Simulation results Simulation results Inner detector.
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 N. Davidson Calibration with low energy single pions Tau Working Group Meeting 23 rd July 2007.
1 ACD studies: 1. Light Yield Determination for top ACD Tiles 2. Looking for holes (screws) in the ACD data Instrument Analysis Workshop VI Luis C. Reyes.
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.
Tracker Reconstruction SoftwarePerformance Review, Oct 16, 2002 Summary of Core “Performance Review” for TkrRecon How do we know the Tracking is working?
Measurement of through-going particle momentum by means of Multiple Scattering with the T600 TPC Talk given by Antonio Jesús Melgarejo (Universidad de.
Progress with the Development of Energy Flow Algorithms at Argonne José Repond for Steve Kuhlmann and Steve Magill Argonne National Laboratory Linear Collider.
Preliminary comparison of ATLAS Combined test-beam data with G4: pions in calorimetric system Andrea Dotti, Per Johansson Physics Validation of LHC Simulation.
GlueX Particle Identification Ryan Mitchell Indiana University Detector Review, October 2004.
Monte Carlo Comparison of RPCs and Liquid Scintillator R. Ray 5/14/04  RPCs with 1-dimensional readout (generated by RR) and liquid scintillator with.
Point Source Search with 2007 & 2008 data Claudio Bogazzi AWG videconference 03 / 09 / 2010.
20 Jan 2009SiD Benchmark Meeting1 Chargino / Neutralino Analysis Update Yiming Li University of Oxford.
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.
Detection of electromagnetic showers along muon tracks Salvatore Mangano (IFIC)
Detector Monte-Carlo ● Goal: Develop software tools to: – Model detector performance – Study background issues – Calculate event rates – Determine feasibility.
Positional and Angular Resolution of the CALICE Pre-Prototype ECAL Hakan Yilmaz.
© Imperial College LondonPage 1 Tracking & Ecal Positional/Angular Resolution Hakan Yilmaz.
N. Saoulidou, Fermilab, MINOS Collaboration Meeting N. Saoulidou, Fermilab, ND/CC Parallel Session, MINOS Collaboration Meeting R1.18.
Bangalore, India1 Performance of GLD Detector Bangalore March 9 th -13 th, 2006 T.Yoshioka (ICEPP) on behalf of the.
GLAST Calorimeter Crystal Position Measurement Zach Fewtrell, NRL/Praxis GLAST Integration & Test Workshop SLAC July 14, 2005.
13 July 2005 ACFA8 Gamma Finding procedure for Realistic PFA T.Fujikawa(Tohoku Univ.), M-C. Chang(Tohoku Univ.), K.Fujii(KEK), A.Miyamoto(KEK), S.Yamashita(ICEPP),
Met and Normalization Sarah Eno. I wanted to see if we can learn anything about the MET normalization issue using a toy monte carlo. first, we need a.
CALOR April Algorithms for the DØ Calorimeter Sophie Trincaz-Duvoid LPNHE – PARIS VI for the DØ collaboration  Calorimeter short description.
Search for High-Mass Resonances in e + e - Jia Liu Madelyne Greene, Lana Muniz, Jane Nachtman Goal for the summer Searching for new particle Z’ --- a massive.
The dimuon physics continuum An update June 21, 2004, Sébastien Gadrat for the LPC, Clermont-Ferrand. The contributions to the dimuon spectrum above 1.5.
QM2004 Version1 Measurements of the  ->     with PHENIX in Au+Au Collisions at 200 GeV at RHIC PPG016 Figures with Final Approval Charles F. Maguire.
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.
Study of Calorimeter performance using the LC full simulator The 8th ACFA Workshop Yoshihiro Yamaguchi (Tsukuba U.) M. -C. Chang (RCNS, Tohoku U.) K. Fujii.
1 A Study Of Anomalous Events In CMS-HF PMTs A. Halu, E. Gülmez, M. Deliömeroğlu Physics Department Boğaziçi University International Conference on Particle.
Photon purity measurement on JF17 Di jet sample using Direct photon working Group ntuple Z.Liang (Academia Sinica,TaiWan) 6/24/20161.
Observation Gamma rays from neutral current quasi-elastic in the T2K experiment Huang Kunxian for half of T2K collaboration Mar. 24, Univ.
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.
MAUS Status A. Dobbs CM43 29 th October Contents MAUS Overview Infrastructure Geometry and CDB Detector Updates CKOV EMR KL TOF Tracker Global Tracking.
L2 Muon Trigger Study Status Report
Neutrino factory near detector simulation
Predrag Krstonosic - ILC Valencia
Charles F. Maguire Vanderbilt University
Interactions of hadrons in the Si-W ECAL
DT Local Reconstruction on CRAFT data
Measurements of Cosmic-Ray Lithium and Beryllium Isotopes
Preliminary Results on Non-Projective HCal Simulations
TKR to CAL for 16 Towers The usual TKR extrapolation to CAL study, for the 16 tower data. Check calibrations, look for problems, etc. Today -- “work in.
TOF Fiducial Cut on 325 +/- 25 MeV/c (++ Field)
Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope
Testing some CAL specs Level 3 CAL requirement 5.5.5:
Imaging crystals with TKR
Summary of dE/dx studies in silicon and MS in muon system
NKS2 Meeting with Bydzovsky NKS2 Experiment / Analysis Status
CR Photon Working Group
Studies of the Time over Threshold
Presentation transcript:

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 ) “Some” differences, especially for tracker related variables Investigation: possible causes of discrepancy This is not a systematic study Sara Cutini - Gino Tosti INFN-PG Francesco Longo INFN-TS

2 May 27, 2005 Kalman’s variables Tkr1KalThetaMS represents the angle of multiple scattering calculated using the kalman filter. Muon selection: 1 reconstructed track, 36 tracker clusters, reconstructed energy in the Cal between 50MeV and 150MeV pink: MC, black: the real data The MC mean value (0.005rad) is nearly half value respect to the real data

3 May 27, 2005 Kalman’s variables Tkr1KalEne represents the track energy calculated using the kalman filter. This variable goes like 1/ , where  is the MS angle, Indeed the MC variable peaks at twice the value of the real data Why do we have this difference? For two towers? Let’s see.

4 May 27, 2005 Kalman’s variables for TwoTowers Let’s see the same variables for two towers data, after the muons selection. We have the same result. MC (EM-v4r060302p23): pink Run ( ): black

5 May 27, 2005 Kalman’s variables for Two Towers data We note this peak and we tried to understand where this peak comes from but we need more time to study it.

6 May 27, 2005 Possible causes of the Problems Problem generated by an underestimation of multiple scattering in the Montecarlo? We generated some events with the new version of Geant that seems to reproduce well the theoretical MS. See this link pdfhttp://www-glast.slac.stanford.edu/software/AnaGroup/burnett/Background%20status-25-april- 05.pdf But the problem persists… Problem is the MC Kalman filter? It uses the deposited energy in the Cal to extrapolate the energy of the track and its MS’s angle. But: it uses as default particle the electrons But also the data have been processed using the same option, and changing this option is not useful.

7 May 27, 2005 Input Flux?? The last hypothesis that we tested is that the input flux is not well modeling real data In the /flux/v…/xml/surface_library.xml we have 3 different options available. The pink one is the official MC. The blue one is the flux reproduced by the Caprice data. The green one the Hiro flux (Analytical Spectrum)

8 May 27, 2005 Caprice Flux We generated 3M events with the Caprice energy spectrum, looking at the same Kalman’s variables we note a “small” improvement. Let’s see… The Caprice’s peak is lower then the previous MC and the tail follows the real data. Blue Caprice MC. Pink Official MC. Black the real data

9 May 27, 2005 Hiro Flux We tried also the spectrum provided by Hiro but the result is very similar to the Caprice spectrum. Green Hiro MC. Pink Official MC. Black the real data But the problem persists!!

10 May 27, 2005 Low Flux We have looked only to the low energy part of the official Montecarlo: a flat spectrum energy below 1 GeV Red Low MC. Pink Official MC. Black the real data The multiple scattering angle is still not well reproduced.

11 May 27, 2005 Digi Variables Look at the digi data. Some differences also in the digi variables We used the Svac Ntuple, using the “tot[tower][layer][view][end]”. This plots represent the Time Over Threshold for one layer in both view. This could be due to a digitization problem, so we generated some events with a different digitization algorithm (the Bari’s digitization). But: that doesn’t change the distribution. (Thanks Anders!)

12 May 27, 2005 Conclusions We don’t understand why we have this difference and we need to figure out where the problem comes from We checked also other variables from the Merit and Svac Ntuple: e.g. Hits multiplicity, Cal variables, reconstructed direction… but we don’t find considerable differences. The problem could be generated by Wrong input flux? Multiple Scattering? Kalman filter which maybe works in two different ways for the real data and MC? Digitization problem? Help us to understand!!!

13 May 27, 2005 Backup slide Let see the ratio between the run histogram and the MC histograms. In black: run/Mc official In blue: run/Mc caprice In green: run/Mc hiro In pink: run/Mc low