A.Chekhtman1 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, February, 27, 2006 CAL features and idiosyncrasies. Alexandre Chekhtman NRL/GMU Gamma-ray Large.

Slides:



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

Digital Filtering Performance in the ATLAS Level-1 Calorimeter Trigger David Hadley on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration.
Adding electronic noise and pedestals to the CALICE simulation LCWS 19 – 23 rd April Catherine Fry (working with D Bowerman) Imperial College London.
GLAST LAT Project Calibration and Analysis Meeting, 28 Nov 2005 E. Grove et al. 1 Proposed Flight Trigger Configuration: Engines and Scheduler Table J.
29 June 2004Paul Dauncey1 ECAL Readout Tests Paul Dauncey For the CALICE-UK electronics group A. Baird, D. Bowerman, P. Dauncey, C. Fry, R. Halsall, M.
GLAST LAT Project Calibration & Analysis Meeting - August 29, 2005 Benoît Lott Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope Response of the GLAST LAT Calorimeter.
GLAST LAT ProjectIA Workshop 6 – Feb28,2006 Preliminary Studies on the dependence of Arrival Time distributions in the LAT using CAL Low Energy Trigger.
28 Feb 2006Digi - Paul Dauncey1 In principle change from simulation output to “raw” information equivalent to that seen in real data Not “reconstruction”,
SVAC/ISOCInstrument Analysis Workshop, February 27, 2006 Anders W. Borgland 1 Overview Of LAT Data Taking Anders W. Borgland Science Verification, Analysis.
GLAST LAT Project Instrument Analysis Workshop 6 – 06/02/27 F. Piron & E. Nuss (LPTA) 1 Trending CAL performance and mapping crystals Gamma-ray Large Area.
A.Chekhtman1 GLAST LAT ProjectCalibration and Analysis group meeting, April, 3, 2006 CAL on-orbit calibration with protons. Alexandre Chekhtman NRL/GMU.
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.
A.Chekhtman1 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, July 28, 2006 Calibration of high energy diode. Alexandre Chekhtman NRL/GMU Gamma-ray Large.
A.Chekhtman1 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, June, 24, 2005 CAL retriggering study with SLAC data. Alexandre Chekhtman NRL/GMU Gamma-ray.
Status of Oxford Setup Matthew Chalk, Erik Devetak, Johan Fopma, Brian Hawes, Ben Jeffery, Nikhil Kundu, Andrei Nomerotski University of Oxford ( 18 August.
SVAC Instrument Analysis Meeting Aug 5, 2005 E. do Couto e Silva and Anders W. Borgland 1/7 SVAC 8 tower testing+ACD Anders and Eduardo.
GLAST LAT ProjectGLAST Flight Software IDT, October 16, 2001 JJRussell1 October 16, 2001 What’s Covered Activity –Monitoring FSW defines this as activity.
GLAST LAT Project Software vrvs meeting X. Chen 1 GLAST LAT Project Software vrvs meeting X. Chen 1 Analyses of Muon Calibration Data Xin Chen.
A.Chekhtman1 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, January, 20, 2006 Status of calorimeter calibration. Alexandre Chekhtman NRL/GMU Gamma-ray Large.
A.Chekhtman1 GLAST LAT ProjectCAL Recon rewriting meeting, May, 11, 2005 In what cases we need external position estimation ? Alexandre Chekhtman NRL/GMU.
Octal ASD Certification Tests at Michigan J. Chapman, Tiesheng Dai, & Tuan Bui August 30, CERN.
SVACInstrument Analysis Meeting, September 23, 2005 Anders W. Borgland 1 GEM Discarded Events Anders W. Borgland Science Verification, Analysis and Calibrations.
GLAST LAT Project SE Test Planning meeting October 4, 2004 E. do Couto e Silva 1/13 SVAC Data Taking during LAT SLAC Oct 4, 2004 Eduardo.
GLAST Large Area Telescope Engineering Meeting 23 November 2004 Charge Injection Calibration James Swain Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
ACD calibrations Pedestals Measured from online script Measure PHA w/ HV off, no charge injection Use cyclic triggers ~ ADC counts, very narrow.
GLAST LAT ProjectOnline Peer Review – July 21, Integration and Test L. Miller 1 GLAST Large Area Telescope: I&T Integration Readiness Review.
GLAST LAT Project Instrument Analysis Workshop #4, 14 July 2005 David Smith CAL calib at SLAC SVAC1 Stability of the CAL Calibrations Online script “suites”
The PEPPo e - & e + polarization measurements E. Fanchini On behalf of the PEPPo collaboration POSIPOL 2012 Zeuthen 4-6 September E. Fanchini -Posipol.
Performance test of STS demonstrators Anton Lymanets 15 th CBM collaboration meeting, April 12 th, 2010.
Reports from DESY Satoru Uozumi (Staying at DESY during Nov 11 – 25) Nov-21 GLDCAL Japan-Korea meeting.
Tests with JT0623 & JT0947 at Indiana University Nagoya PMT database test results for JT0623 at 3220V: This tube has somewhat higher than usual gain. 5×10.
FLC Group Test-beam Studies of the Laser-Wire Detector 13 September 2006 Maximilian Micheler Supervisor: Freddy Poirier.
GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis Workshop, June 2004 J. Eric Grove Naval Research Lab Washington DC Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope CAL Detector.
LMS Stability, Data Correction and the Radiation Accident within the PrimEx Experiment by LaRay J. Benton M.S. Nuclear Physics May 2006 Graduate North.
A.Chekhtman1 GLAST LAT ProjectBeam test meeting, September 27, 2006 CsI afterglow - possible explaination of pedestal drift and excess of energy. Alexandre.
1 xCAL monitoring Yu. Guz, IHEP, Protvino I.Machikhiliyan, ITEP, Moscow.
Dec.11, 2008 ECL parallel session, Super B1 Results of the run with the new electronics A.Kuzmin, Yu.Usov, V.Shebalin, B.Shwartz 1.New electronics configuration.
GLAST LAT Project LAT Instrument Analysis Workshop – Feb 27, 2006 Hiro Tajima, TKR Data Processing Overview 1 GLAST Large Area Telescope: TKR Data Processing.
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.
Results from particle beam tests of the ATLAS liquid argon endcap calorimeters Beam test setup Signal reconstruction Response to electrons  Electromagnetic.
Trip-t testing progress report
1 P.Rebecchi (CERN) “Monitoring of radiation damage of PbWO 4 crystals under strong Cs 137  irradiation in GIF-ECAL” “Advanced Technology and Particle.
(s)T3B Update – Calibration and Temperature Corrections AHCAL meeting– December 13 th 2011 – Hamburg Christian Soldner Max-Planck-Institute for Physics.
STAR Analysis Meeting, BNL – oct 2002 Alexandre A. P. Suaide Wayne State University Slide 1 EMC update Status of EMC analysis –Calibration –Transverse.
1 GLAST LAT Project CalSoft Face-to-Face Meeting April 15 – 16, 2004 Benoît Lott GSI Analysis Status Degrader 58 Ni Beam Fragments Target EM miniCAL GSI’s.
Some feedbacks from DRS data analysis (very preliminary) F. Scuri - I.N.F.N Sezione di Pisa RD52 – Collaboration Meeting – Pavia, March 12, 2013 F. Scuri.
1 MGPA Linearity Mark Raymond (Dec.2004) Non-linearity measurements in the lab hardware description method results.
GLAST LAT ProjectI&T Test Planning Telecon, 8 Nov 2004 CAL Test and Calibration DefinitionJ. Eric Grove GLAST LAT GLAST LAT Calorimeter Subsystem Gamma-ray.
G. Eigen, Paris, Introduction The SiPM response is non-linear and depends on operating voltage (V-V bd ) and temperature  SiPMs need monitoring.
Calorimeter global commissioning: progress and plans Patrick Robbe, LAL Orsay & CERN, 25 jun 2008.
CALICE, CERN June 29, 2004J. Zálešák, APDs for tileHCAL1 APDs for tileHCAL MiniCal studies with APDs in e-test beam J. Zálešák, Prague with different preamplifiers.
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.
- Herve Grabas - Ecole Superieure d’Electicite 1 Internship presentation - University of Chicago – 3 sept
Calorimeter Cosmics Patrick Robbe, LAL Orsay & CERN, 20 Feb 2008 Olivier, Stephane, Regis, Herve, Anatoly, Stephane, Valentin, Eric, Patrick.
3/06/06 CALOR 06Alexandre Zabi - Imperial College1 CMS ECAL Performance: Test Beam Results Alexandre Zabi on behalf of the CMS ECAL Group CMS ECAL.
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.
GLAST LAT Project SE Test Planning Dec 7, 2004 E. do Couto e Silva 1/27 Trigger and SVAC Tests During LAT integration Su Dong, Eduardo do Couto e Silva.
Rainer Stamen, Norman Gee
CMS Preshower: Startup procedures: Reconstruction & calibration
Single-CAL Test and Calibration
Roberto Chierici - CERN
Pulse Shape Fitting Beam Test September, October CERN
Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope
Calorimeter calibrations with Flight Software.
Testing some CAL specs Level 3 CAL requirement 5.5.5:
Eduardo do Couto e Silva Feb 28, 2006
Shaped Digital Readout Noise in CAL
CAL crosstalk issues and their implications
Presentation transcript:

A.Chekhtman1 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, February, 27, 2006 CAL features and idiosyncrasies. Alexandre Chekhtman NRL/GMU Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope

A.Chekhtman2 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, February, 27, 2006 Long list of unexpected features … Retriggering –Seen at low FLE/FHE thresholds or at high gain –Is not a problem at flight configuration Nonlinearity –Preamp nonlinearity – measured by charge injection and taken into account –Crosstalk from FLE/FHE discriminator to preamp – significant at low FLE/FHE, but could be neglected at flight configuration Some additional nonlinearity features, necessary to explain charge injection measurements with different gains and charge injection capacitors (ongoing study) –Nonlinearity of Charge injection DAC –DAC “pedestal” (DAC=0 injects nonzero charge) Incorrect best range selection or range numbering –Seen in Engineering Module beam test data from GSI: some crystals have end to end ratio ~8 (data specify the same range numbers for both ends, but in reality they were different). –Could be related to incorrect setting of range decision delay –Never tested for LAT (need high energy depositions at significant rate and data collection with “auto- ranging”) Shaped readout noise –Affects energy and position measurements –Could be calibrated for LAT (see later in this talk) and should be corrected in reconstruction Crosstalk from LE diode to HE diode –Seen for FM119 –Could affect nonlinearity in HEX8 and HEX1 ranges –Should be calibrated for LAT (modification of calibGen script required) and corrected in reconstruction –Should be verified by test beam linearity measurement (in the energy range GeV)

A.Chekhtman3 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, February, 27, 2006 This presentation is focused on Two selected features: –Shaped readout noise –Crosstalk from Low Energy diode to High Energy diode Why ? –They are recently found –Significantly affect the result of energy/position measurement –Require modification of calibration/reconstruction procedure

A.Chekhtman4 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, February, 27, 2006 Shaped readout noise – some history The resulting effects were seen since Engineering Module testing at NRL in 2003 –Non-gaussian component in the pedestal shape (broad and asymmetric, but with usually with low probability) –We were unable to interpret this effect because there was no timing information at microsecond level. First real detection with 2-tower configuration in June 2005 ( glast.slac.stanford.edu/IntegrationTest/SVAC/Instrument_Analysis/Workshop-4/Talks/CAL_readout_noise_study.pdf ) –Noise signal in many channels, decreasing exponentially with GemDeltaEventTime (time constant ~ 4 µs - corresponds to slow shaper) –Based on trigger run – effect was easy to see due to high retriggering rate (huge statistics at small GemDeltaEventTime) –Biggest signal ~10 MeV –in some channels the noise signal was negative –Confirmed in B2 run for 3 channels with biggest effect For full LAT – effect confirmed by Eric Grove in December 2005 ( glast.slac.stanford.edu/IntegrationTest/SVAC/Instrument_Analysis/Meetings/ /MoreShapedReadoutNoise.pdf ) –Zero suppression doesn’t allow to see the effect if it is less than LAC threshold (~2 MeV) at both ends of the same crystal –We cannot turn zero suppression off, because this introduces long dead time and the effect becomes invisible. –We would like to correct for this effect and so we need to calibrate it for all calorimeter channels

A.Chekhtman5 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, February, 27, 2006 How to calibrate shaped readout noise ? One proposed solution – intentionally set LAC thresholds below pedestals, but only for limited number of channels (to avoid increase of dead time) –We tried this solution for FM119 with the help of our colleagues working in Italy – it works, but takes a lot of time (especially for full LAT ) Natural solution – use 10 Hz periodic trigger events, included in flight trigger setup with multiple trigger engines –5 runs (15 minutes each) have just been collected on Feb, 22 –Because of some software bug (non-zero event markers) all events except periodic trigger were discarded from Ntuples So I got a clean sample –45K periodic triggers –4 range readout – no zero suppression – no extra dead time

A.Chekhtman6 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, February, 27, 2006 Calibration procedure Select events with GemConditionsWord == 32 For each channel plot profile histogram: CalXtalAdcPed[twr][lyr][col][face]:GemDeltaEventTime*0.05 Fit it with following function for 26.5<dt<60: –Signal = ped+peak*exp(-(dt-tdead)/tshp), tshp = 4.2μs, tdead=26.5 μs Store two fit parameters: –Peak – noise value right after dead time (at dt=26.5 μs) –Ped – noise value at dt=60 μs (pedestal bias ?)

A.Chekhtman7 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, February, 27, 2006 Examples of histograms Examples of histograms Big noise medium noise typical noise negative noise

A.Chekhtman8 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, February, 27, 2006 It is not always perfect … Some histograms have small (~5 adc units) but statistically significant deviations from exponential function: –Other sources of coherent noise ?

A.Chekhtman9 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, February, 27, 2006 Noise amplitude vs column and layer (for all 16 towers ) Big positive noise amplitudes exist in columns 5, 6 and 7 (in certain layers) Negative amplitudes – in layer 7 only, in columns 5,7 for face=0 and columns 4,6 for face=1 Big amplitude at one face usually corresponds to small amplitude at the opposite face of the same crystal Similar pattern for all towers

A.Chekhtman10 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, February, 27, 2006 How to explain the pattern ? Column 5 (or 6) is the closest to digital data transmission line –This possibly could explain that the biggest noise signals are in these columns Why it is layer dependent ? Another factor: data transmission from each row starts from columns 0 and 11 and ends on columns 5 and 6 –Columns 5 and 6 are the last ones accessed before the next trigger May be TEM experts could look at readout noise pattern on previous slide and recognize some features(time sequence) of AFEE access by TEM ?

A.Chekhtman11 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, February, 27, 2006 Histograms of noise fit parameters for all channels Mean value of noise amplitude in all calorimeter channels is 24 adc units = 0.8 MeV There is small pedestal bias ~ 3adc units relative to B13 run used for LAT calibration.

A.Chekhtman12 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, February, 27, 2006 Effect on position measurement Readout noise is often rather different at opposite faces of the same crystal –Could significantly affect the longitudinal position measurement even for modest noise amplitude –This effect could be measured for muons by comparing longitudinal position measurement from CAL with coordinate extrapolated from tracker and plotting the difference as a function of GemDeltaEventTime –I’ve done the inverse exercise: Considered that difference in position measurement is produced by the noise signal at one end of crystal Calculated this noise signal and plotted it as a function of GemDeltaEventTime

A.Chekhtman13 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, February, 27, 2006 Shaped readout noise for muons calculated from position measurement This is an alternative way to calibrate shaped readout noise (only determine the difference between two crystal ends)

A.Chekhtman14 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, February, 27, 2006 Shaped readout noise: conclusions The systematic effect has been calibrated using periodic trigger events from new trigger setup with multiple trigger engines (LAT701) Next step – use this calibration to correct the effect during reconstruction.

A.Chekhtman15 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, February, 27, 2006 Crosstalk from Low Energy diode to High Energy diode we measure the crosstalk between channels of the same crystal end in standard charge injection calibration procedure (calibGen script): –We pulse only LE diode and measure output signals in both LE and HE channels – so, we can measure the crosstalk –The measured crosstalk value was always ~0.1% and considered insignificant –This statement is true only for LE/HE signal ratio ~1 (standard charge injection setup). But for scintillation signals LE/HE ~50, so 0.1% crosstalk from LE diode to HE diode becomes 5% of HE signal and should be taken into account. – for scintillation signals HE diode is used when LE diode channel is strongly saturated – we need to measure LE to HE crosstalk in this regime

A.Chekhtman16 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, February, 27, 2006 How can we measure LE to HE crosstalk in realistic conditions There is special control bit (CALIBGAIN ON/OFF) which can change the capacitors, used to inject charge in LE and HE diodes –CALIBGAIN=ON – standard regime –CALIBGAIN=OFF: Low Energy capacitor increased by the factor of 10 High Energy capacitor decreased by the factor of 10 This gives the LE/HE signal ratio ~100, which is two times bigger than for real scintillations I tried to do LE to HE crosstalk measurement in this mode for FM119 and I got rather unexpected result.

A.Chekhtman17 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, February, 27, 2006 Crosstalk measurement results for FM119 Crosstalk ratio to main HEX8 signal vary between 1% and 12% difficult to explain the increase of crosstalk for HEX8>500, when LEX1 channel is saturated

A.Chekhtman18 GLAST LAT ProjectInstrument Analysis meeting, February, 27, 2006 LE to HE crosstalk: conclusions Effect is not negligible and should be taken into account calibGen should be modified to include the charge injection run with flight gains, CALIBGAIN=OFF and LE diode pulsed The generation of nonlinearity curves by calibGenCAL should take this crosstalk measurement into account The only way to verify this correction with real scintillations is to measure CAL nonlinearity in the energy range 0.4 – 8 GeV during CERN beam test –Proposal to be discussed