Results from Non-proj Geom Guilherme, Jeremy and Vishnu.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

LC Calorimeter Testbeam Requirements Sufficient data for Energy Flow algorithm development Provide data for calorimeter tracking algorithms  Help setting.

Advertisements

PFA-Enhanced Dual Readout Crystal Calorimetry Stephen Magill - ANL Hans Wenzel - FNAL Outline : Motivation Detector Parameters Use of a PFA in Dual Readout.

EF with simple multi-particle states Vishnu V. Zutshi NIU/NICADD.

LCDG4: a Geant4-based detector simulator for the LCD Guilherme Lima for the NICADD simulations group Geant4 Tutorial Fermilab, Oct

Single Particle Energy Resolution Vishnu V. Zutshi.

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

LCDG4 at NIU Status and Plans Dhiman Chakraborty, Guilherme Lima, Manuel Martin, Jeremy McCormick, Vishnu Zutshi NICADD / Northern Illinois University.

A first look at the digital approach Vishnu V. Zutshi NIU/NICADD.

PFA on SiDaug05_np Lei Xia ANL-HEP. PFA outline Calibration of calorimeter –Done –Not tuned for clustering algorithm Clustering algorithm –Done: hit density.

GEM DHCAL Simulation Studies J. Yu* Univ. of Texas at Arlington ALCW, July 15, 2003 Cornell University (*on behalf of the UTA team; S. Habib, V. Kaushik,

 Track-First E-flow Algorithm  Analog vs. Digital Energy Resolution for Neutral Hadrons  Towards Track/Cal hit matching  Photon Finding  Plans E-flow.

 Performance Goals -> Motivation  Analog/Digital Comparisons  E-flow Algorithm Development  Readout R&D  Summary Optimization of the Hadron Calorimeter.

About N em cut: 20 GeV neutron N(em)=0 N(em)

ECAL Digitization Rick Wilkinson May 25, ECAL Digitization CaloHitResponse CaloSamples (analog signal) EcalElectronicsSim EBDataFrame EEDataFrame.

1 N. Davidson E/p minimum bias update with Athena Analysis Meeting 12 th June 2007.

Geant4-based Simulation Status and Plans Dhiman Chakraborty, Guilherme Lima, Jeremy McCormick, Vishnu Zutshi Calorimetry Working Group ALCPG 2004 Winter.

Jerry Blazey NIU/NICADD Towards A Scintillator (Semi)- Digital Hadron Calorimeter: Progress at NIU/NICADD Jerry Blazey Northern Illinois University.

Individual Particle Reconstruction Norman Graf SLAC April 28, 2005.

February 8th, 2007Anne-Marie Magnan - Imperial College London 1 Update on clusterisation studies for MAPS Comparison between 2 methods of clustering Geant4/LCIO.

LPC Jet/Met meeting 1/12/2006L. Perera1 Jet/Calorimeter Cluster Energy Corrections – Status Goal: To improve the individual jet energy determination based.

1 N. Davidson E/p minimum bias update with Athena Jet Note 8 Meeting 7 th June 2007.

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.

Potpourri Vishnu V. Zutshi Northern Illinois University.

PFA Development – Definitions and Preparation 0) Generate some events w/G4 in proper format 1)Check Sampling Fractions ECAL, HCAL separately How? Photons,

Jerry Blazey NIU/NICADD Towards A Scintillating (Semi)- Digital Hadron Calorimeter: Progress at NIU/NICADD Jerry Blazey Northern Illinois University.

Energy Flow Studies Steve Kuhlmann Argonne National Laboratory for Steve Magill, Brian Musgrave, Norman Graf, U.S. LC Calorimeter Group.

Scintillator (semi)DHCAL? Vishnu Zutshi for. Introduction Can a scintillator (semi)digital calorimeter work? Cell sizes are necessarily 6-12 cm 2 Can.

More on Testbeam Analysis FLZ. Stability Checks for TCMT Pedestal stability already shown by Kurt MIP calibration stability Response stability.

Certifying Geant4-based calorimeter simulations for the LCD Dhiman Chakraborty, Guilherme Lima, Jeremy McCormick, Vishnu Zutshi NICADD, NIU ALCWG-Cal Meeting.

A Digital Hadron Calorimeter ? Vishnu V. Zutshi NIU/NICADD.

1/9/2003 UTA-GEM Simulation Report Venkatesh Kaushik 1 Simulation Study of Digital Hadron Calorimeter Using GEM Venkatesh Kaushik* University of Texas.

Track Extrapolation/Shower Reconstruction in a Digital HCAL – ANL Approach Steve Magill ANL 1 st step - Track extrapolation thru Cal – substitute for Cal.

Event Reconstruction in SiD02 with a Dual Readout Calorimeter Detector Geometry EM Calibration Cerenkov/Scintillator Correction Jet Reconstruction Performance.

26 Apr 2009Paul Dauncey1 Digital ECAL: Lecture 1 Paul Dauncey Imperial College London.

UTA GEM DHCAL Simulation Jae Yu * UTA DoE Site Visit Nov. 13, 2003 (*On behalf of the UTA team; A. Brandt, K. De, S. Habib, V. Kaushik, J. Li, M. Sosebee,

Simulation & Algorithms Update Development of Simulation Tools Development of Simulation Tools Calorimetry E-Flow Algorithms Calorimetry E-Flow Algorithms.

Test beam preliminary results D. Di Filippo, P. Massarotti, T. Spadaro.

1 D.Chakraborty – VLCW'06 – 2006/07/21 PFA reconstruction with directed tree clustering Dhiman Chakraborty for the NICADD/NIU software group Vancouver.

Particle-flow Algorithms in America Dhiman Chakraborty N. I. Center for Accelerator & Detector Development for the International Conference.

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

1 Hadronic calorimeter simulation S.Itoh, T.Takeshita ( Shinshu Univ.) GLC calorimeter group Contents - Comparison between Scintillator and Gas - Digital.

Individual Particle Reconstruction The PFA Approach to Detector Development for the ILC Steve Magill (ANL) Norman Graf, Ron Cassell (SLAC)

1 The comparisons between with and without JES uncertainty. jet with pt > 30 GeV, |eta| 40. Jet Y is calculated by 0.5*log[(E+pz)/(E-pz)] CMS Data.

LAV efficiency studies with photons T. Spadaro* *Frascati National Laboratory of INFN.

Mark Dorman Separation Of Charged Current And Neutral Current Events In The MINOS Far Detector Using The Hough Transform Mark Dorman 16/12/04.

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

W Prototype Simulations Linear Collider Physics & Detector Meeting December 15, 2009 Christian Grefe CERN, Bonn University.

Simulation Plan Discussion What are the priorities? – Higgs Factory? – 3-6 TeV energy frontier machine? What detector variants? – Basic detector would.

Geant4-based detector simulation activities at NICADD Guilherme Lima for the NICADD simulations group December 2003.

DE/dx in ATLAS TILECAL Els Koffeman Atlas/Nikhef Sources: PDG DRDC (1995) report RD34 collaboration CERN-PPE

Physics performance of a DHCAL with various absorber materials Jan BLAHA CALICE Meeting, 16 – 18 Sep. 2009, Lyon, France.

Geant4-based Simulation Status and Plans

Dual Readout Clustering and Jet Finding

Study of energy shower profile and 1m3 energy resolution Jan Blaha Laboratoire d'Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules MicroMegas Physics.

Towards a Scintillator-based (semi)Digital HCal

EFA/DHCal development at NIU

Preliminary Results on Non-Projective HCal Simulations

Mokka vs. LCDG4 Comparison

Plans for checking hadronic energy

Mokka vs. LCDG4 Comparison

Time resolution in TileCal

Argonne National Laboratory

N vs. E 0.25mip threshold roughcut for SLAC 2/24/2019.

LSO: Energy resolution

Steve Magill Steve Kuhlmann ANL/SLAC Motivation

Study of MDC tuning.

LC Calorimeter Testbeam Requirements

Rick Salcido Northern Illinois University For CALICE Collaboration

Towards a Scintillator-based (semi)Digital HCal

Presentation transcript:

Results from Non-proj Geom Guilherme, Jeremy and Vishnu

Sampling Weights Determined from 10 GeV charged pions Minimize: (1/N)  (E 0 – a i L i ) 2 where E 0 is the incident energy a i is the weight for layer i L i is the energy/number of hits in lyr i For simplicity i=2 considered here

Energy Resolution single threshold

ZZ events Fitted width

ZZ events RMS

Analog

Digital

Sampling Weights GISMO (projective) Analog  64.5 (EM) 16.2(HD) Digital  (EM) (HD) G4 (non-projective) Analog  84.2 (EM) 17.6 (HD) Digital  (EM) (HD)

Energy Resolution (non-proj) single threshold

Energy Resolution (non-proj) dual threshold

Proj vs Non-proj

Comments The gain in going to non-projective geom is about what we expected (~20%) But we are not comparing the same thing SDMar vs SDJan GISMO vs G4 EMCal sampling is different Need to convert these to jet resolutions