CAL CALIBRATION Overview and Stability Thomas Schörner-Sadenius Hamburg University ESCALE Meeting DESY, 7 June 2005.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

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

Advertisements

Test Setup for PHOBOS Hybrid/Module Testing at MIT Pradeep Sarin 31 July 98.

INSTITUT MAX VON LAUE - PAUL LANGEVIN Fast Real-time SANS Detectors Charge Division in Individual, 1-D Position- sensitive Gas Detectors Patrick Van Esch.

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

2 Introduction   MiniCal test-beam studies started at the beginning of March (till March 6 we only had 17 APD’s, then 33 APD’s)   A few days were.

May 14, 2015Pavel Řezníček, IPNP Charles University, Prague1 Tests of ATLAS strip detector modules: beam, source, G4 simulations.

Adding electronic noise and pedestals to the CALICE simulation LCWS 19 – 23 rd April Catherine Fry (working with D Bowerman) Imperial College London.

TileCal Electronics A Status Report J. Pilcher 17-Sept-1998.

Using the EUDET pixel telescope for resolution studies on silicon strip sensors with fine pitch Thomas Bergauer for the SiLC R&D collaboration 21. May.

Standalone VeloPix Simulation Jianchun Wang 4/30/10.

GLAST LAT Project Calibration & Analysis Meeting - August 29, 2005 Benoît Lott Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope Response of the GLAST LAT Calorimeter.

Y. Karadzhov MICE Video Conference Thu April 9 Slide 1 Absolute Time Calibration Method General description of the TOF DAQ setup For the TOF Data Acquisition.

1 Hadronic In-Situ Calibration of the ATLAS Detector N. Davidson The University of Melbourne.

Design and test of a high-speed beam monitor for hardon therapy H. Pernegger on behalf of Erich Griesmayer Fachhochschule Wr. Neustadt/Fotec Austria (H.

ECAL TIMING. 20/04/092 Ratios’ Method Basics Position of pulse maximum parameterized using the ratio of two consecutive samples, i.e., R = A(t)/A(t+1)

CFT Calibration Calibration Workshop Calibration Requirements Calibration Scheme Online Calibration databases.

FMS review, Sep FPD/FMS: calibrations and offline reconstruction Measurements of inclusive  0 production Reconstruction algorithm - clustering.

The Time-of-Flight system of the PAMELA experiment: in-flight performances. Rita Carbone INFN and University of Napoli RICAP ’07, Rome,

Michele Faucci Giannelli TILC09, Tsukuba, 18 April 2009 SiW Electromagnetic Calorimeter Testbeam results.

The Transverse detector is made of an array of 256 scintillating fibers coupled to Avalanche PhotoDiodes (APD). The small size of the fibers (5X5mm) results.

PWO/APD Activities at Hiroshima U. Kenta Shigaki (Hiroshima University) 20 July 2004 at CERN.

Coincidence analysis in ANTARES: Potassium-40 and muons  Brief overview of ANTARES experiment  Potassium-40 calibration technique  Adjacent floor coincidences.

Performance test of STS demonstrators Anton Lymanets 15 th CBM collaboration meeting, April 12 th, 2010.

Adam Para, Fermilab, April 26, Total Absorption Dual Readout Calorimetry R&D Fermilab, Caltech, University of Iowa, Argonne National Laboratory,

MR (7/7/05) T2K electronics Beam structure ~ 8 (9?) bunches / spill bunch width ~ 60 nsec bunch separation ~ 600 nsec spill duration ~ 5  sec Time between.

25/07/2002G.Unal, ICHEP02 Amsterdam1 Final measurement of  ’/  by NA48 Direct CP violation in neutral kaon decays History of the  ’/  measurement by.

Calibration of the ZEUS calorimeter for electrons Alex Tapper Imperial College, London for the ZEUS Collaboration Workshop on Energy Calibration of the.

FLC Group Test-beam Studies of the Laser-Wire Detector 13 September 2006 Maximilian Micheler Supervisor: Freddy Poirier.

CAL DQM February 2004 Thomas Schörner-Sadenius DESY, 25 February 2004.

ATLAS Liquid Argon Calorimeter Monitoring & Data Quality Jessica Levêque Centre de Physique des Particules de Marseille ATLAS Liquid Argon Calorimeter.

Status of Beam loss Monitoring on CTF3 Results of Tests on LINAC and PETS as R&D for TBL Anne Dabrowski Northwestern University Thibaut Lefevre CERN CTF3.

Calibration of the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter with first LHC data

The DRS2 Chip: A 4.5 GHz Waveform Digitizing Chip for the MEG Experiment Stefan Ritt Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland.

08-June-2006 / Mayda M. VelascoCALOR Chicago1 Initial Calibration for the CMS Hadronic Calorimeter Barrel Mayda M. Velasco Northwestern University.

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

Resolution and radiative corrections A first order estimate for pbar p  e + e - T. H. IPN Orsay 05/10/2011 GDR PH-QCD meeting on « The nucleon structure.

The experimental setup of Test Beam HE EE ES BEAM  A slice of the CMS calorimter was tested during summer of 2007 at the H2 test beam area at CERN with.

1 LHCb meeting Anatoli Konoplyannikov Introduction Which HV to be set before beam will come? Needed Constants PVSS data point type (DPT) format.

5-9 June 2006Erika Garutti - CALOR CALICE scintillator HCAL commissioning experience and test beam program Erika Garutti On behalf of the CALICE.

(s)T3B Update – Calibration and Temperature Corrections AHCAL meeting– December 13 th 2011 – Hamburg Christian Soldner Max-Planck-Institute for Physics.

Systematics on ScECAL 1 st prototype DESY Apr , CALICE Satoru Uozumi for the CALICE collaboration NIM A, 763 (2014) 278.

ScECAL Beam FNAL Short summary & Introduction to analysis S. Uozumi Nov ScECAL meeting.

11 October 2002Paul Dauncey - CDR Introduction1 CDR Introduction and Overview Paul Dauncey Imperial College London.

Idea for next data taking at FNAL Dec-14 th 2008 ScECAL S. Uozumi (Kobe)

26/May/2008Calor LHCb Preshower(PS) and Scintillating pad detector (SPD): commissioning, calibration, and monitoring Eduardo Picatoste Universitat.

Calibration of the ZEUS calorimeter for hadrons and jets Alex Tapper Imperial College, London for the ZEUS Collaboration Workshop on Energy Calibration.

LHCf Detectors Sampling Calorimeter W 44 r.l, 1.6λ I Scintilator x 16 Layers Position Detector Scifi x 4 (Arm#1) Scilicon Tracker x 4(Arm#2) Detector size.

CAL DQM January 2004 Thomas Schörner-Sadenius DESY, 28 January 2004.

Calibration of energies at the photon collider Valery Telnov Budker INP, Novosibirsk TILC09, Tsukuba April 18, 2009.

ESTIMATING THE 6m TAGGER ACCEPTANCE Thomas Schörner-Sadenius, UHH ZEUS Collaboration meeting DESY, 27 February 2006.

Test Beam Results on the ATLAS Electromagnetic Calorimeters Lucia Di Ciaccio – LAPP Annecy (on behalf of the ATLAS LAr Group) OUTLINE Description of the.

Régis Lefèvre (LPC Clermont-Ferrand - France)ATLAS Physics Workshop - Lund - September 2001 In situ jet energy calibration General considerations The different.

LHC Symposium 2003 Fermilab 01/05/2003 Ph. Schwemling, LPNHE-Paris for the ATLAS collaboration Electromagnetic Calorimetry and Electron/Photon performance.

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.

Sergey BarsukElectromagnetic Calorimeter for 1 Electromagnetic Calorimeter for the LHCb experiment Perugia, Italy March 29 – April 2, 2004 ECAL CALO Sergey.

Prototypes photon veto detectors for NA62 experiment CERN M. Raggi - INFN/Frascati for the NA62 Photon Veto Working Group LNF, RM1, NA, PI, SOFIA First.

Krisztian PetersPrecision Calibration of the DØ HCAL in Run II1 Krisztian Peters University of Manchester For the DØ Calorimeter Algorithm Group June.

1 Projectile Spectator Detector: Status and Plans A.Ivashkin (INR, Moscow) PSD performance in Be run. Problems and drawbacks. Future steps.

1 Methods of PSD energy calibration. 2 Dependence of energy resolution on many factors Constant term is essential only for energy measurement of single.

DESY BT analysis - updates - S. Uozumi Dec-12 th 2011 ScECAL meeting.

Performance of 1600-pixel MPPC for the GLD Calorimeter Readout Jan. 30(Tue.) Korea-Japan Joint Shinshu Univ. Takashi Maeda （ Univ. of Tsukuba)

 13 Readout Electronics A First Look 28-Jan-2004.

Calorimeter Status Electronics Installation and Commissioning

Why we need an improved LASER calibration system

Solving pedestal problem

CALICE scintillator HCAL

A First Look J. Pilcher 12-Mar-2004

BESIII EMC electronics

Stefan Ritt Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland

Gain measurements of Chromium GEM foils

Presentation transcript:

CAL CALIBRATION Overview and Stability Thomas Schörner-Sadenius Hamburg University ESCALE Meeting DESY, 7 June 2005

DESY 7 June 2005TSS: CAL Calibration2 INTRODUCTION TO THE ZEUS UCAL Depleted Uranium for calibration and compensation Principle Depleted Uranium – scintillator calorimeter; analog pipelined PMT readout. Analog electronics on front-end cards on detector; digital electronics in 3rd floor of rucksack. Division in F/B/RCAL with 2172/2592/1154 cells, 2 PMTs per cell EM cell size: 5  20 (10  20) cm 2 in F/BCAL (RCAL) HA cell size: 20  20 cm 2. Resolution:  (e)/E=17%/  E,  (h)/E=35%/  E Claim: absolute energy scale known to 1%. 98.1% 238 U,  decay to 234 Th,  decays to 234 PA and then 234 U,  cascades in between. E max (  )=2.3 MeV, E(  )= keV  (U)=4.5 Gy (Giga-years)  rather stable signal of ZEUS lifetime. Use UNO (Uranium noise) signal to monitor CAL behaviour with time Calibration Uranium Idea

DESY 7 June 2005TSS: CAL Calibration3 READOUT OVERVIEW Necessary for understanding of calibration constants. shaperpipelinebuffer shaperpipelinebuffer To trigger 55pC I UNO 20ms integration time over UNO current Q high Q low V DAC DAC V ref V ref =1.67V UNO Energy Q Current I PMT Charge Q Voltage V ADC counts Digital electronics Necessary: Calibration of particle/jet energy to ADC counts PMT

DESY 7 June 2005TSS: CAL Calibration4 CALIBRATION IDEA Use stable Uranium noise as calibration signal Uranium activity stable in time. UNO signal stable in time to about 1% (CERN testbeam) e/UNO or h/UNO for given E e, E h stable in time (studying the ratio cancels some uncertainties  more precise result e,h response linear in energy (CERN testbeam) Assumption 1 Assumption 2 Assumption 3 Assumption 4 STEP A STEP B Keep UNO signal stable  trimming of HV settings  UNO scale factors (offline GAFs) From known and linear e/UNO (h/UNO) then estimate energy of e,h. One of the many complications: UNO signal and (fast) physics signal go through different signal paths on front-end card! UNO[ADC] fixed e(E)[ADC]/UNO[ADC]: CERN! then e[ADC]  e[GeV]

DESY 7 June 2005TSS: CAL Calibration5 “1%” CALIBRATION Refers to rather different things Intermodule/interregion calibration After UNO calibration: compare various modules in their response to well-defined input energies (test beam)  spread of various modules ~ 1% 1% - the first 1% - the second Determination of absolute scale E(particle)  ADC: after UNO calibration (UNO gives precise ADC count): absolute scale delivered by (using the test beam results): Two important questions/tasks here: -- Keep the UNO signal to the nominal as closely as possible (UNO scale factors, but also other smaller corrections for front-end, signal path etc.) -- Derive offline correction factors from physics data (kin. Peak, E-p z, etc.) ‘one-to-one relation between ADC and energy. Within one module response from towers is gaussian with width ~1%!  in testbeam fix scale to 1%!

DESY 7 June 2005TSS: CAL Calibration6 UNO SCALE FACTORS CAL offline GAFs – the one that always stop the reconstruction For all CAL regions means within few permille around 1. Widths below 1%. Channel-by-channel comparison of two UNO GAFs from and Means ~1permille. Widths ~0.5%. Several HV adjustments between the two dates. No systematic trends, distributions gaussian  absolute calibration preserved at 1%-level!

DESY 7 June 2005TSS: CAL Calibration7 UNO SCALE FACTORS Module by Module comparisons of relative UNO differences No significant changes between modules  intermodule calibration still at 1%-level!

DESY 7 June 2005TSS: CAL Calibration8 FURTHER OFFLINE CORRECTIONS Motivated by physics; take into account dead material etc. PHANTOM routine escale03.fpp (default in ORANGE) applies corrections for F/B/RCAL, separately for EMC and HAC; in addition cell corrections for some RCAL cells FEMC: FHAC: BEMC: 1.003*1.05 BHAC: 1.044*1.05 REMC: RHAC: Corrections derived from kinematic peak events and DA measurements. -- repeat in newer data? -- dependence on physics case? -- any manpower currently involved?

DESY 7 June 2005TSS: CAL Calibration9 SUMMARY and possible outlook Started to look into long-term stability of CAL calibration (UNO scale factors).  absolute calibration seems stable to within 1% over time.  intermodule calibration within about 1%  if initial absolute energy calibration good to 1%, then this quality is probably preserved until today. Needed: Better understand of calibration in detail; only then can judge on quality of calibration. Important:  control of offline CAL regional (caltru) correction factors  use physics events for that (kin. peak, E-p z, DA method etc.)