LAr Response to pions: Data vs MC S.Paganis (Wisconsin) with Isabelle Winterger,Martin Aleksa LAr Week CTB Meeting, CERN, 10-May-2005.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

FCal TB2003 Shower profiles: G4/MC - Test beam DATA comparison A.Artamonov and ITEP group /afs/cern.ch/user/g/gorbunov/public/prof_note.pdf.

Advertisements

Status of CTB04 electron data vs MC analysis Stathes Paganis (Sheffield) Martin Aleksa (CERN) Isabelle Wingerter (LAPP) LAr Week, Cargnano, Italy 13-Sep-05.

ATLAS Tile Calorimeter Performance Henric Wilkens (CERN), on behalf of the ATLAS collaboration.

1 Calice ECAL Meeting UCL 8/06/09David Ward Thoughts on transverse energy profile for e/m showers David Ward  We have work from G.Mavromanolakis on this.

1 Calice UK Analysis Meeting 23/1/07David Ward Cambridge data analysis work David Ward Main focus – data-MC comparisons Using “official” reconstructed.

Electromagnetic shower in the AHCAL selection criteria data / MonteCarlo comparison of: handling linearity shower shapes CALICE collaboration meeting may.

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

LAr Response to pions: Data vs MC (work in progress) S.Paganis (Wisconsin) withIsabelle,Martin LAr+Tile H8 pion CTB Meeting, CERN, 19-April-2005.

Preshower 15/03/2005 P.Kokkas Preshower September Run Data Analysis P. Kokkas.

1 Calice Meeting 20/9/06David Ward What did we learn from DESY 2005 run? DESY run May CERN run August Data/MC comparisons for ECAL.

1 Study of the Tail Catcher Muon Tracker (TCMT) Scintillator Strips and Leakage with Simulated Coil Rick Salcido Northern Illinois University For CALICE.

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

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.

The TA Energy Scale Douglas Bergman Rutgers University Aspen UHECR Workshop April 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.

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 Calice Analysis Meeting 13/02/07David Ward Just a collection of thoughts to guide us in planning electron analysis In order to end up with a coherent.

1 N. Davidson Calibration with low energy single pions Tau Working Group Meeting 23 rd July 2007.

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.

MCP checks for the H-4l mass. Outline and work program The problems: – Higgs mass difference from the  – Possible single resonant peak mass shift (with.

LCG Meeting, May 14th 2003 V. Daniel Elvira1 G4 (OSCAR_1_4_0) Validation of CMS HCal V. Daniel Elvira Fermilab.

W  eν The W->eν analysis is a phi uniformity calibration, and only yields relative calibration constants. This means that all of the α’s in a given eta.

Preliminary comparison of ATLAS Combined test-beam data with G4: pions in calorimetric system Andrea Dotti, Per Johansson Physics Validation of LHC Simulation.

Energy Flow Technique and *where I am Lily Have been looking at the technique developed by Mark Hodgkinson, Rob Duxfield of Sheffield. Here is a summary.

NSW background studies Max Bellomo, Nektarios Benekos, Niels van Eldik, Andrew Haas, Peter Kluit, Jochen Meyer, Felix Rauscher 1.

Preliminary Study of CC-Inclusive Events in the P0D using Global Reconstruction Rajarshi Das (w/ Walter Toki) Nu-Mu Prelim. Meeting Dec 2010 CSU.

Optimizing DHCAL single particle energy resolution Lei Xia Argonne National Laboratory 1 LCWS 2013, Tokyo, Japan November , 2013.

Optimizing DHCAL single particle energy resolution Lei Xia 1 CALICE Meeting LAPP, Annecy, France September 9 – 11, 2013.

DHCAL - Resolution (S)DHCAL Meeting January 15, 2014 Lyon, France Burak Bilki, José Repond and Lei Xia Argonne National Laboratory.

Isabelle Wingerter-Seez (LAPP) ATLAS Overview Week - Stockholm 1 LARG H8 combined run: Analysis status Data/MC comparison Energy Reconstruction.

Marco Delmastro 23/02/2006 Status of LAr EM performance andmeasurements fro CTB1 Status of LAr EM performance and measurements for CTB Overview Data -

A. Gibson, Toronto; Villa Olmo 2009; ATLAS LAr Commissioning October 5, 2009 Commissioning of the ATLAS Liquid Argon Calorimeter Adam Gibson University.

1 Calice UK Meeting 27/03/07David Ward Plans; timescales for having analysis results for LCWS Status of current MC/data reconstruction Reconstruction status;

1 Energy loss correction for a crystal calorimeter He Miao Institute of High Energy Physics Beijing, P.R.China.

Update on Material Studies - Progress on Linearity using calib-hits (very brief) - Revisiting the material problem: - a number of alternative scenarios.

News from Jet/Etmiss Monica. Jet/Etmiss meeting yesterday (25/5) at P&P week – Mostly review of conf notes for ICHEP10 – Good review to check where we.

Ideas for in-situ calibration for the EMC S.Paganis, K.Loureiro ( Wisconsin ) input from+discussions with T.Carli, F.Djama, G.Unal, D.Zerwas, M.Boonekamp,

CTB04: electron Data vs MC Stathes Paganis University of Sheffield LAr CTB04 WG 25-Aug-05.

Combined Longitudinal Weight Extraction and Intercalibration S.Paganis ( Wisconsin ) with K.Loureiro ( Wisconsin ), T.Carli ( CERN ) and input from F.Djama(Marseille),

EM Resolution Studies D. Banfi, L. Carminati (Milano), S.Paganis (Wisconsin) egamma WG, Atlas Software Week, CERN, 26-May-2005.

Marco DelmastroCALOR Recent results of the ATLAS combined test-beam1 Recent results of the ATLAS Barrel Combined Test-beam (on behalf of the ATLAS.

Status of MC validation in ATLAS 17/07/2006 Atlas Detector and Calibration Strategy MC validation of whole detector some examples.

First look at non-Gaussian tails with the new Reconstruction Stathes Paganis Univ. of Sheffield LAr-H8 Working Group, 18-Oct-05.

Results from particle beam tests of the ATLAS liquid argon endcap calorimeters Beam test setup Signal reconstruction Response to electrons  Electromagnetic.

1ECFA/Vienna 16/11/05D.R. Ward David Ward Compare these test beam data with Geant4 and Geant3 Monte Carlos. CALICE has tested an (incomplete) prototype.

Cedar and pre-Daikon Validation ● CC PID parameter based CC sample selections with Birch, Cedar, Carrot and pre-Daikon. ● Cedar validation for use with.

CALOR April Algorithms for the DØ Calorimeter Sophie Trincaz-Duvoid LPNHE – PARIS VI for the DØ collaboration  Calorimeter short description.

Mark Dorman UCL/RAL MINOS Collaboration Meeting Fermilab, Oct. 05 Data/MC Comparisons and Estimating the ND Flux with QE Events ● Update on QE event selection.

Update on Diffractive Dijet Production Search Hardeep Bansil University of Birmingham Soft QCD WG Meeting 29/04/2013.

LAr Reconstruction: Data vs MC (parabola) S.Paganis (Wisconsin) WithManuel,Isabelle,Martin,Karina,Walter,… LAr H8 Meeting, CERN, 5-April-2005.

Discussion on Combined (ID+LAr) Material Studies action plan  Latest LAr linearity plot from period 5  Discussion on test MC run production.

First Measurement of Jets and Missing Transverse Energy with the ATLAS Calorimeter at and David W. Miller on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration 13 May 2010.

Testbeam analysis Lesya Shchutska. 2 beam telescope ECAL trigger  Prototype: short bars (3×7.35×114 mm 3 ), W absorber, 21 layer, 18 X 0  Readout: Signal.

Feb. 3, 2007IFC meeting1 Beam test report Ph. Bruel on behalf of the beam test working group Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope.

Manqi Ruan Discussing & Support: Roman, Francois, Vincent, Supervisor: Z. ZHANG (LAL) & Y. GAO (Tsinghua)) DQ Check for CERN Test.

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

Electrons in CTB: status of data/MC comparisons LAr & Inner Detector H8 CTB groups Physics Week, CERN, 30-May-2006.

M.D. Nov 27th 2002M0' workshop1 M0’ linearity study  Contents : Electronic injection Laser injection Beam injection Conclusion.

Check of Calibration Hits in the Atlas simulation. Assignment of DM energy to CaloCluster. G.Pospelov Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk,

1 Dead material correction status. Alexei Maslennikov, Guennadi Pospelov. Bratislava/Kosice/MPI Calorimeter Meeting. 8-December Problems with DM.

1 Calice Analysis 21/7/08David Ward Quick look at 2008 e - data; low energy hits in 2006  2008 e - data from Fermilab; July’08  Looked at several runs.

LAr Response to pions: Data vs MC

on behalf of ATLAS LAr Endcap Group

First look at data/MC comparison for period 8 reference runs

Introduction The aim of this talk is to try to get a feeling on the expected degradation of performance of a calibration once we move from MonteCarlo.

EM Linearity using calibration constants from Geant4

2000 Diffuse Analysis Jessica Hodges, Gary Hill, Jodi Cooley

Rick Salcido Northern Illinois University For CALICE Collaboration

Data/ Monte Carlo comparisons for the EMC

Presentation transcript:

LAr Response to pions: Data vs MC S.Paganis (Wisconsin) with Isabelle Winterger,Martin Aleksa LAr Week CTB Meeting, CERN, 10-May-2005

10-May-2005LAr response to pions2 Analysis ( data+MC)  Run: GeV pions Fully combined, have shown previously problems in LAr rec. energy  Parabola Energy reconstruction 15ADC “cubicADCcut” in LArRawChannelSimpleBuilder.cxx  A2MEV numbers from EMTB  EMTB 3x3 clustering  No cluster corrections, No Long. weigths  No shower cuts yet.  MC: 20k events Charge collection corrections Tried to get “correct” beam profile … ADC2MEV in Digitization step (parabola is the default)

10-May-2005LAr response to pions3 Program Flow ( release ): Analysis C++ Package MC: ADC2MEV happens here Thanks to: Manuel Galas Final Physics Plots jobOptions.G4Ctb_Dig.py Reconstruction ESD and CBNT Data: ADC2MEV here CTB04 Data jobOptions.G4Ctb_Sim.py TBAnalysis on ESD miniCBNT +G4Apps

10-May-2005LAr response to pions4 ADC -> MeV for MC and Data (10.0.2) Monte Carlo: LArdigitMaker.cxx Data: LArRawChannelSimpleBuilder.cxx Differences at present : 1.Difference in the Sampling Fractions 2.Different noise normalization due to ADC2MeV (small)

10-May-2005LAr response to pions5 Data: 3x3 LAr vs Total tile Energy Electrons Pion LAr MIPs

10-May-2005LAr response to pions6 Beam Profiles Can do better Data MC

10-May-2005LAr response to pions7 Cleaning cuts  For reconstructed energy comparisons: E(MC) = Erec * SFmc/SFdata  For visible energy comparisons: E(MC) = Erec * SFmc E(data) = Erec * SFdata  muTag to remove muons  Etile+ELAr MIP cuts to remove muons  ELAr>15GeV, to remove electrons (crude) Don’t want to use shower shape cuts yet (under study) Possible Long electron tail

10-May-2005LAr response to pions8 Possible biases:  Tile MC has no noise.  For data a LAr drift time assumption is made to get the SF  LAr MC has noise but it does not perfectly represent the data  Cuts on LAr energy cause a bias when scale and shape are different  Parabolic fit at low energies? ...

10-May-2005LAr response to pions9 MuTag: removes a portion of muons

10-May-2005LAr response to pions10 Zoom in the “MIP” region (after cuts) MC is broader, slow rising: due to more noise or the parabola or …? OLD Plot: April 2005: we care because MIP region is upstream material insensitive!

10-May-2005LAr response to pions11 Noise: ADC[2] eta=10, phi=8 DATAMC

10-May-2005LAr response to pions12 Noise: ADCpeak DATAMC

10-May-2005LAr response to pions13 Noise: Reduce the MC noise to 0.6 DATAMC Great match! However …

10-May-2005LAr response to pions14 Noise: ADCpeak still wider! DATAMC

10-May-2005LAr response to pions15 Zoom in the “MIP” region (after cuts) Improved agreement and an indication of the MC EM scale being a few % too low. However, in the data 5ns ~ 1% New Plot: after reducing accordion noise in MC. we care because MIP region is upstream material insensitive!

10-May-2005LAr response to pions16 LAr Energy after simple cuts Data MC Some disagreement between data and MC after only SF adjustment. It seems that there is additional upstream material, not present in the simulation.

10-May-2005LAr response to pions17 Visible Energy per LAr Sampling More energy in MC Less energy in MC Normalization away from the noise region

10-May-2005LAr response to pions18 Total visible Energy (LAr) Normalization away from the noise region

10-May-2005LAr response to pions19Summary  Reasonable but not perfect agreement between Data and MC: MIP region indicates lower EM MC response (few %) Strips vs Middle response indicates some missing material in the MC description (must be checked).  Discrepancy between DATA and MC for very small depositions was resolved: due to inconsistent noise in MC and due to the ADCpeak parabola calculation (move to OFCs)  Tile colleagues confirmed MC improvement. Will try to communicate the present progress. Next round, use OFCs

10-May-2005LAr response to pions20 Supporting Viewgraphs

10-May-2005LAr response to pions21 ADC2MEV (Data vs MC) ADC2DACDAC2Volt Volts2  A  A2MeV How:Ramps uA/Volt Injection Resistor (t drift *W)/e  1/SF PS (EMB1) /R=0.114 nA 1250 S1 (EMB1) nA S2 (EMB1) nA S3 (EMB1) nA

10-May-2005LAr response to pions22 How to get the SF for Data (an example) SF(Presampler <0.8)=t*W/e/1250 = SF(Accordion <0.8)=t*W/e/ =