28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting Status of the dE/dx calibration Yuri Fisyak.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Program Degrad.1.0 Auger cascade model for electron thermalisation in gas mixtures produced by photons or particles in electric and magnetic fields S.F.Biagi.
Advertisements

Simulation of the RPC Response José Repond Argonne National Laboratory CALICE Collaboration Meeting University Hassan II Casablanca, Morocco September.
1 STAR TOF Calibration. 2 Detectors TPC(TPX) - tracking MRPC TOF (TOFr) – stop time measurement pVPD/upVPD - start time measurement Particle momentum;
TPC status Marian Ivanov. Outlook TPC performance ExB correction Alignment Nonlinearities and edge effects Drift velocity calibration.
14 Sept 2004 D.Dedovich Tau041 Measurement of Tau hadronic branching ratios in DELPHI experiment at LEP Dima Dedovich (Dubna) DELPHI Collaboration E.Phys.J.
HLT - data compression vs event rejection. Assumptions Need for an online rudimentary event reconstruction for monitoring Detector readout rate (i.e.
Algorithms and Methods for Particle Identification with ALICE TOF Detector at Very High Particle Multiplicity TOF simulation group B.Zagreev ACAT2002,
1 HLT – a source of calibration data One of the main tasks of HLT (especially in the first years) –Monitoring of the detector performance –Analysing calibration.
A quick guide to success
An offline look at TIF data David Stuart UC Santa Barbara May 2, 2007.
FMS review, Sep FPD/FMS: calibrations and offline reconstruction Measurements of inclusive  0 production Reconstruction algorithm - clustering.
CMS Alignment and Calibration Yuriy Pakhotin on behalf of CMS Collaboration.
X.Dong, USTC/LBNL Feb. 20th, 04, STAR Collaboration Meeting 1 TOF Software Progress Xin Dong, for TOF Group  TOF detectors in Run IV  Online software.
2011 HV scan SF6 flow-meter accident 2011 Results comparison RPC HV efficiency scan Pigi Paolucci on behalf of RPC collaboration.
STAR Collaboration Meeting, Nantes, July2002 SVT Analysis/Status Update Jun Takahashi – University of Sao Paulo.
1 TPC online  offline calibration November 2002.
The PEPPo e - & e + polarization measurements E. Fanchini On behalf of the PEPPo collaboration POSIPOL 2012 Zeuthen 4-6 September E. Fanchini -Posipol.
JT: 1 The Berkeley Lab STAR TPC Distortions in the Transverse Plane: An Update Jim Thomas.
DE/dx measurement with Phobos Si-pad detectors - very first impressions (H.P Oct )
Status of TPC experiment ---- Online & Offline M. Niiyama H. Fujimura D.S. Ahn W.C. Chang.
STAR Analysis Meeting, BNL, Dec 2004 Alexandre A. P. Suaide University of Sao Paulo Slide 1 BEMC software and calibration L3 display 200 GeV February.
Real data reconstruction A. De Caro (University and INFN of Salerno) CERN Building 29, December 9th, 2009ALICE TOF General meeting.
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Page 1 EC / PCAL ENERGY CALIBRATION Cole Smith UVA PCAL EC Outline Why 2 calorimeters? Requirements Using.
TPC online reconstruction Cluster Finder & Conformal Mapping Tracker Kalliopi Kanaki University of Bergen.
 Production at forward Rapidity in d+Au Collisions at 200 GeV The STAR Forward TPCs Lambda Reconstruction Lambda Spectra & Yields Centrality Dependence.
Özkan ŞAHİN & Tadeusz KOWALSKI Uludağ University, Physics Department, Bursa – TURKEY Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, AGH University of.
STAR Collaboration Meeting Rene Bellwied – Wayne State University July 2004 SVT Calibration and STI tracking status An update of work since the SVT review.
E. De LuciaNeutral and Charged Kaon Meeting – 7 May 2007 Updates on BR(K +  π + π 0 ) E. De Lucia.
STAR Collaboration Meeting, BNL, Feb 2005 Alexandre A. P. Suaide University of Sao Paulo Slide 1 BEMC software update L3 display 200 GeV February.
LASER CALIBRATION SYSTEM for STAR TPC Alexei Lebedev (BNL) for STAR collaboration  Design and description  Performance  Goals and results  Future developments.
Tracking in High Density Environment
Normal text - click to edit HLT tracking in TPC Off-line week Gaute Øvrebekk.
STAR TPC Cluster and Hit Finder Software Raimond Snellings.
Diego González-Díaz (GSI-Darmstadt) GSI, now R3B!
TPC ExB distortion at LHC-ALICE experiment Yasuto Hori for the ALICE-TPC collaboration Center for Nuclear Study, University of Tokyo 1.
V0 analytical selection Marian Ivanov, Alexander Kalweit.
1 Yu. Guz HCAL status 22/06/ Yu. Guz HCAL 137 Cs calibration The 3 rd run in 2011 was performed at the technical stop, May-09. Two source passages,
LM Feb SSD status and Plans for Year 5 Lilian Martin - SUBATECH STAR Collaboration Meeting BNL - February 2005.
Nov 2002T. Ljubicic DAQ100 Calibration Needs 10 to 8 bit (and back!) conversion table Gain correction per pad T0 correction per pad.
FTPC status and results Summary of last data taken AuAu and dAu calibration : Data Quality Physic results with AuAu data –Spectra –Flow Physic results.
I.BelikovCHEP 2004, Interlaken, 30 Sep Bayesian Approach for Combined Particle Identification in ALICE Experiment at LHC. I.Belikov, P.Hristov, M.Ivanov,
(s)T3B Update – Calibration and Temperature Corrections AHCAL meeting– December 13 th 2011 – Hamburg Christian Soldner Max-Planck-Institute for Physics.
STAR Collaboration Meeting, BNL – march 2003 Alexandre A. P. Suaide Wayne State University Slide 1 EMC Update Update on EMC –Hardware installed and current.
STAR Analysis Meeting, BNL – oct 2002 Alexandre A. P. Suaide Wayne State University Slide 1 EMC update Status of EMC analysis –Calibration –Transverse.
Nantes — 2008, July Analysis of results from EmCal beam test at CERN PS (and SPS) energies P. La Rocca & F. Riggi University & INFN Catania University.
Multi-strange Baryon Correlations in p+p and d+Au Collisions at √s NN = 200 GeV Betty Bezverkhny Yale University For the Collaboration Hot Quarks ’04,
FTPC calibration status & plans for Y03 Joern Putschke for the STAR FTPC group STAR Calibration Meeting 2002 November 7, 2002.
A. De Caro for the ALICE TOF Offline Group (University of Salerno and INFN)
HMPiD upgrade variant; simulation status N. Smirnov Physics Department, Yale University, May, 06. CERN visit.
06/2006I.Larin PrimEx Collaboration meeting  0 analysis.
1 EMCAL Reconstruction in Pass pp 900 GeV 29/03/2010 Gustavo Conesa Balbastre.
Comparison of MC and data Abelardo Moralejo Padova.
Calibration algorithm and detector monitoring - TPC Marian Ivanov.
Particle identification by energy loss measurement in the NA61 (SHINE) experiment Magdalena Posiadala University of Warsaw.
Fast offline dE/dx calibrations Y. Fisyak 11/07/02.
Outline Description of the experimental setup Aim of this work TDC spectra analysis Tracking method steps Autocalibration Single tube resolution Summary.
Particle Identification of the ALICE TPC via dE/dx
Year 3 Reconstruction and Calibration Status David Hardtke LBNL 1.What’s new? 2.Status of Calibrations 3.Why we need ITTF.
June 4, 2009 STAR TPC review Estimation of TPC Aging Based on dE/dx Measurements Yuri Fisyak.
Feb C.Smith UVA EC energy calibration – g13 pass0 For pass0 data were cooked with CALDB calibration constants reset to nominal 10 channels / MeV.
TPC status report Marian Ivanov.
Status Report Fenfen An
Tracking results from Au+Au test Beam
TOF CALIBRATION DATABASE
Commissioning of the ALICE HLT, TPC and PHOS systems
MICE Collaboration Meeting
TPC status - Offline Q&A
Plans for checking hadronic energy
Presentation transcript:

28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting Status of the dE/dx calibration Yuri Fisyak

28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting Outlook Why did we revisit dE/dx calibration? What is the dE/dx calibration? Where are we now? Conclusions

28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting Why ? Last calibration was done in March, 2002: –σ(dE/dx)/(dE/dx) = 8.2% for 76 cm track –STAR CDR (p. 4C-33) σ(dE/dx)/(dE/dx) = 0.47 N (Ph) -0.32, P = 1atm σ Inner = 14.3%, h = 1.15 cm, N = 12; σ Outer = 7.7%, h = 1.95 cm, N = 32; σ = 6.8% for 76 cm track in TPC –H.Bichsel simulation: σ = 7.0 % for 13 * 1.2 cm + 32 * 2.0 cm –I was not happy that ~1% is missing. H.Bichsel’s calculations reproduce the data only qualitatively. Is this due to calibration procedure ? H.Bichsel claims that we have non linearity in dE measurement. Can we check this ? Can dE/dx calibration be done in one pass? Can we move it into fast online ?

28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting What does calibration include? Applying pad correction obtained from pulser data (Fabrice did this and I will not talk about it) For good clusters (used in fit, no overlaps) For good global tracks (No. fit points ≥ 30, Track length in TPC > 40 cm) Z =log[(dE/dx) measured /(dE/dx) predicted for π ] Fit Z-distribution with Gauss(μ,σ) + pol3 in +/-3σ range ( It is supposed that we have ~80% π.) μ => 0 and it should not depend on Time, Pressure Sector, row Drift distance, …

28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting Pressure

28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting What does prediction mean ? 0.45 GeV/c MIP = 2.4 keV/cm

28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting 76 cm Resolution before calibration

28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting What does March calibration mean? The same procedure as for Year 1 data Sirrf was used as prediction Calibration was done for all tracks (no restriction on momentum) Time dependence : overall gain correction factor each few hours (1-4) Sector and pad row correction Drift distance correction Result : σ = 9.6% → σ = 8.2% March 02 : σ = σ CDR = 6.8% 76 cm)

28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting New calibration Calibration is based on tracks with 0.4 < p < 0.5 GeV/c (~MIP for pions: βγ = p/m = 4). Calibration has been done for new (daq) tcl only. Bichsel’s calculation was used as prediction with dx dependence (see next slides) i.e. Z =log[(dE/dx) measured /(dE/dx) predicted for π (βγ,dx)] This calibration gives σ = 8.8% (instead of 8.2% obtained in March because it was done only for 0.4<p<0.5GeV/c but resolution is obtained for all momenta).

28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting Bichsel shapes Inner fit by φ(μ+(1+σ)z), where φ(z) is Bichsel shape and z = log(dE/dE most probable );

28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting Outer Both inner and outer rows are reasonably well described by Bichsel shape.

28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting Cluster dE nonlinearity For uniquely identified tracks: σ < 15% and v=log[(dEdx)/(dE/dx) J ], where J = [e,π,K,p,d] |v| < 3σ for only J, and |(dE/dx) J - (dE/dx) k | >5σ, for J≠K Plot shows predicted dE versus measured dE The origin of the nonlinearity was not clear: –ADC ? –Clustering ?

28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting Pulser runs (ADC nonlinearity) Thanks to Blair and Fabrice ! Pulser runs were done with different signal levels. ADC response has the same trend as correction obtained for clusters and thus confirm that we have saturation effects seen in the data. Still there is a question where we have to correct it : daq or offline? Correction for nonlinearity for clusters

28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting Y2 Calibration tables dE/dx corrections: table names ( new, used, not used ) R “ADC” nonlinearity => “TpcAdcCorrection” Z Drift distance =>“TpcDriftDistOxygen”,“TpcZCorrection” Pressure: => “tpcPressure” Time => “TpcTimeGain” not used any more All time dependence is accounted via correction for Pressure and Oxygen contamination SecRow => “TpcSecRowB” has to be redone after Fabrice’s pulser corrections dX correction => “TpcdXCorrection” TPC track length => “TpcLengthCorrection” has to be redone after Fabrice’s pulser corrections

28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting New calibration with new (daq) Clustering for Y2 data 76 cm

28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting New calibration with old (tcl) Clustering for Y2 data cm

28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting dAu data with Y2 calibration 76 cm

28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting dAu Data after Sector/row correction 76 cm

28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting dE/dx from dAu with Bichsel’s predictions It appears that in dAu the highest dE/dx (>30keV/cm) are over - corrected.

28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting Conclusions A significant nonlinearity is observed in dE with respect to H.Bichsel’s calculations which can be explained by ADC saturation (it might also include nonlinear effects in gas amplification) and offline clustering nonlinearity for low signal. The new calibration scheme allows to improve significantly dE/dx resolution: –9.6% (no calibration)  8.2 % (Y1 calibration scheme)  6.8% (Y2 data, new scheme) == 6.8% (STAR CDR)  6.6 %(dAu data with Y2 calibration)  6.4% (a first look in dAu data) A fine tuning is still necessary: –Model calculation for P10 mixture, –Adjustment of nonlinearity corrections for new data

28 February, 2003 STAR Collaboration meeting Conclusion 1.In present dE/dx calibration model: –Only Sector/Row correction has to be updated after pulser correction update. –The model has to checked => Test Productions –It is important to understand reason for “ADC” nonlinearity: Pulser (for ADC itself) Detailed simulation of cluster finder 2.Time dependence is taken out by Pressure and Drift corrections. 3.To make dE/dx calibration in fast offline it is necessary to have: Access to monitoring tables (tpcGas and might be tpcGainMonitor) A reasonable measurement of track momenta in [0.4,0.5]GeV/c range Statistics : precision ~1% => 24*10K good track (~50%) in momentum range [0.4,0.5] GeV/c (~20%) => 2.4 M tracks. (Now I am using statistics ~50M tracks)