TRD straws status report from 14/03/2012 + AMS-02 acceptance for lepton flux N. Nikonov.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)
Advertisements

Particle identification in ECAL Alexander Artamonov, Yuri Kharlov IHEP, Protvino CBM collaboration meeting
TRD occupancy monitor status report from N.Nikonov.
Plastic Scintillator Option for DB a simulation study by Maxim Gonchar, Yury Gornushkin and Dmitry Naumov JINR, Dubna, Russia Collaboration Meeting January.
Alignment study 19/May/2010 (S. Haino). Summary on Alignment review Inner layers are expected to be kept “almost” aligned when AMS arrives at ISS Small.
March 13thXXXXth RENCONTRES DE MORIOND 1 The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station Carmen Palomares CIEMAT (Madrid) On behalf.
Performance of AMS-02 on the International Space Station DESY Theory Workshop, Hamburg Melanie Heil Supported by the Carl-Zeiss Foundation.
Status of the MICE SciFi Simulation Edward McKigney Imperial College London.
High-Multiplicity Events Analysis Group March 28, 2005 Leon R.
1 G4MICE studies of PID transverse acceptance MICE video conference Rikard Sandström.
Algorithms and Methods for Particle Identification with ALICE TOF Detector at Very High Particle Multiplicity TOF simulation group B.Zagreev ACAT2002,
In order to acquire the full physics potential of the LHC, the ATLAS electromagnetic calorimeter must be able to efficiently identify photons and electrons.
General Trigger Philosophy The definition of ROI’s is what allows, by transferring a moderate amount of information, to concentrate on improvements in.
Anne Dabrowski Northwestern University NA48/2 Semileptonics Meeting 22 nd February 2005 Update Kmu3 Branching Ratio measurement A. Dabrowski, February.
HPS Test Run Setup Takashi Maruyama SLAC Heavy Photon Search Collaboration Meeting Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, May 26-27,
880.P20 Winter 2006 Richard Kass Propagation of Errors Suppose we measure the branching fraction BR(Higgs  +  - ) using the number of produced Higgs.
Muon alignment with Cosmics: Real and Monte Carlo data S.Vecchi, S.Pozzi INFN Ferrara 37th Software Week CERN June 2009.
Status of the Beamline Simulation A.Somov Jefferson Lab Collaboration Meeting, May 11, 2010.
W properties AT CDF J. E. Garcia INFN Pisa. Outline Corfu Summer Institute Corfu Summer Institute September 10 th 2 1.CDF detector 2.W cross section measurements.
1 Tracking Reconstruction Norman A. Graf SLAC July 19, 2006.
Feb 10, 2005 S. Kahn -- Pid Detectors in G4MicePage 1 Pid Detector Implementation in G4Mice Steve Kahn Brookhaven National Lab 10 Feb 2005.
1 Everyday Statistics in Monte Carlo Shielding Calculations  One Key Statistics: ERROR, and why it can’t tell the whole story  Biased Sampling vs. Random.
1 Chapter 7 Sampling Distributions. 2 Chapter Outline  Selecting A Sample  Point Estimation  Introduction to Sampling Distributions  Sampling Distribution.
Impact parameter resolution study for ILC detector Tomoaki Fujikawa (Tohoku university) ACFA Workshop in Taipei Nov
Commissioning Studies Top Physics Group M. Cobal – University of Udine ATLAS Week, Prague, Sep 2003.
11 Sep 2009Paul Dauncey1 TPAC test beam analysis tasks Paul Dauncey.
AND/OR - Are MC and Data (in)consistent? - further analysis and new measurements to do - Effects on inefficiency evaluation 1 G. Martellotti 21/05/2015.
-- Th. S. Bauer (NIKHEF) -- ECT Hera-B Physics results 1.Data of the year 2000 limited statistics 2.Commissioning: trigger and detector.
© Imperial College LondonPage 1 Tracking & Ecal Positional/Angular Resolution Hakan Yilmaz.
Observation of light nuclei with PAMELA Roberta Sparvoli Laura Marcelli, Valeria Malvezzi, Cristian De Santis and the PAMELA Collaboration.
Silicon Detector Tracking ALCPG Workshop Cornell July 15, 2003 John Jaros.
CBM ECAL simulation status Prokudin Mikhail ITEP.
PFAs – A Critical Look Where Does (my) SiD PFA go Wrong? S. R. Magill ANL ALCPG 10/04/07.
RPC Design Studies Gabriel Stoicea, NIPNE-HH, Bucharest CBM Software Week GSI-Darmstadt May 10, 2004.
Optimization of Analysis Cuts for Oscillation Parameters Andrew Culling, Cambridge University HEP Group.
Global Tracking for CBM Andrey Lebedev 1,2 Ivan Kisel 1 Gennady Ososkov 2 1 GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany 2 Laboratory.
Roberto Barbera (Alberto Pulvirenti) University of Catania and INFN ACAT 2003 – Tsukuba – Combined tracking in the ALICE detector.
Magnetized hadronic calorimeter and muon veto for the K +   +  experiment L. DiLella, May 25, 2004 Purpose:  Provide pion – muon separation (muon veto)
Inclusive Measurements of inelastic electron/positron scattering on unpolarized H and D targets at Lara De Nardo for the HERMES COLLABORATION.
Detector alignment Stefania and Bepo Martellotti 20/12/10.
Status of the hadronic cross section (small angle) Federico Nguyen February 22 nd 2005  the 2002 data sample and available MC sets  trigger efficiency.
Preliminary Measurement of the Ke3 Form Factor f + (t) M. Antonelli, M. Dreucci, C. Gatti Introduction: Form Factor Parametrization Fitting Function and.
Update on WH to 3 lepton Analysis And Electron Trigger Efficiencies with Tag And Probe Nishu 1, Suman B. Beri 1, Guillelmo Gomez Ceballos 2 1 Panjab University,
The Detector Performance Study for the Barrel Section of the ATLAS Semiconductor Tracker (SCT) with Cosmic Rays Yoshikazu Nagai (Univ. of Tsukuba) For.
24/08/2009 LOMONOSOV09, MSU, Moscow 1 Study of jet transverse structure with CMS experiment at 10 TeV Natalia Ilina (ITEP, Moscow) for the CMS collaboration.
1 M2-M5 Efficiency and Timing checks on 7TeV beam data Alessia, Roberta R.Santacesaria, April 23 rd, Muon Operation
T2K Status Report. The Accelerator Complex a Beamline Performance 3 First T2K run completed January to June x protons accumulated.
Adam Blake, June 9 th Results Quick Review Look at Some Data In Depth Look at One Anomalous Event Conclusion.
October 2011 David Toback, Texas A&M University Research Topics Seminar1 David Toback Texas A&M University For the CDF Collaboration CIPANP, June 2012.
1 PP Minimum Bias Triggering Simulations Alan Dion Stony Brook University.
Layer00 Efficiency Studies Stephen Levy, UChicago.
LAV efficiency studies with photons T. Spadaro* *Frascati National Laboratory of INFN.
1 Status of Tracker Alignment b-tagging Workshop Nhan Tran (JHU) On behalf of the Tracker Alignment Group.
2005/07/12 (Tue)8th ACFA Full simulator study of muon detector and calorimeter 8th ACFA Workshop at Daegu, Korea 2005/07/12 (Tue) Hiroaki.
Paolo Massarotti Kaon meeting March 2007  ±  X    X  Time measurement use neutral vertex only in order to obtain a completely independent.
Tau31 Tracking Efficiency at BaBar Ian Nugent UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA Sept 2005 Outline Introduction  Decays Efficiency Charge Asymmetry Pt Dependence.
Extrapolation Techniques  Four different techniques have been used to extrapolate near detector data to the far detector to predict the neutrino energy.
E. Soldatov Tight photon efficiency study using FSR photons from Z  ll  decays E.Yu.Soldatov* *National Research Nuclear University “MEPhI”
FP-CCD GLD VERTEX GROUP Presenting by Tadashi Nagamine Tohoku University ILC VTX Ringberg Castle, May 2006.
Open and Hidden Beauty Production in 920 GeV p-N interactions Presented by Mauro Villa for the Hera-B collaboration 2002/3 data taking:
Full Sim Status Estel Perez 27 July 2017.
External Alignment Maya Shimomura (ISU)
3-D SHAPES.
Beam Gas Vertex – Beam monitor
Charles F. Maguire Vanderbilt University
Converted photons efficiency
Measurements of Cosmic-Ray Lithium and Beryllium Isotopes
External Alignment Maya Shimomura (ISU)
Nicolo’ Masi, Andrea Tiseni TOF Group Bologna
Bad Runs Alberto Oliva, July 2012.
Presentation transcript:

TRD straws status report from 14/03/ AMS-02 acceptance for lepton flux N. Nikonov

TRD occupancy monitoring for last week

Straw inefficiency example for aligned TRD (pass4 stream)

TRD straws inefficiency vs. time TRD gas refill Dec 2011

Conclusions and “To do” list for TRD occupancy monitor General work is already finished – Automatic every week processing requires machine which can submit jobs use crontab. Evaluation can be done on daily basis, however, for statistical reason it’s better to have not less than 4 days. – The method works now on 1 week basis, which supposed to be enough. Time – dependence of straw inefficiency was done for first half year of data taking use B620 pass4 stream. – To be continued till March – 2013 studies can be done on std stream as well as weekly reports since method is robust and can find bad straws even if TRD is not aligned.

AMS-02 acceptance check and studies for lepton analysis From MC we measure: – GF of sensitive trigger volumes X Trigger efficiency X TrTrack efficiency. From ISS data we can estimate: – Trigger efficiency for selected particle sample use Tof ¾ unbiased trigger – TrTrack efficiency use other detectors: ECAL for energy measurement, ToF, TRD to check if particle passed trough the tracker. A question: How we can rely on MC? The answer is: Let’s factorize problem – We can define “acceptance planes”: TrTrack – 9 planes, Tof – 4(2) planes, TRD – 2 planes, Ecal – 2 planes and store in preselection (x,y) of MaxSpan Track. – Make simple ToyMC, where only magnetic field involved and evaluate pure GF of this set of planes. – Since G4 doesn’t change particle ID due to Bremsstrahlung, ionization etc., one can calculate: GF pure on toymc X Trigg efficiency (ISS) X Trk efficiency (ISS) This value should be the same what we have from MC. The difference will give us understanding of systematic

Towards acceptance definition: TRK (source: TkDBc) Z= Z=53.06Z= Z=25.212Z=1.698 Z= Z= Z= Z=

Z1= Z2= Z1= Z2= Z1= Z2= Z1= Z2= Towards acceptance definition: TOF (source: TofDBc)

Towards acceptance definition: TRD (source: AC::AMSGeometry) Z= 86.1Z=141.2 Layer 0Layer 20

Towards acceptance definition: ECAL (source: group A preselection) Z1= Z2 = (Exit_in_32_4 && Entry_in_32_4) && ( Exit_in_31_5 || Entry_in_31_5 )

Acceptance planes summary: We have to agree to use max span tracks to check acceptance criteria: – trk_track->iTrTrackPar(1,3,3); Here is a full list of Z which we have to store in particle and efficiency sample selection: Z [cm] detector TRK plane TRK plane TRD plane TRK plane TRD plane TRK plane UTOF layer TRK plane UTOF layer LTOF layer UTOF layer LTOF layer UTOF layer LTOF layer TRK plane LTOF layer TRK plane TRK plane TRK plane ECAL top face ECAL bottom face 21 pair of (x,y) at given Z has to be stored

How detector’s dimensions matches preselected data? Gaps here are due to ECAL geometry cuts in preselection Inefficiency due to dead ladders. Should we cut these events? Probably not because: Flux isotropy, we calculate average efficiency We enlarge border length, possible border issues We wish to keep more statistics Probably yes: Quality of the fit will be better if we have more points

ToyMC for GF evaluation. Generation surface Generation surface: cylinder, R=110 cm, z  [53.06, 170], GF = 37.3 m 2 sr

ToyMC for GF evaluation. Simple tests Measurement of GF for plane with known area Measurement of GF for telescope with 2 circular and rectangular shapes: 22 22

ToyMC for GF evaluation. AMS-02 acceptance planes Trk span Det. cross Inner (all inc.) Inner *L9 * !L1 Inner *L1 * !L9 Inner *L1 * L9 Inner *!L1 * !L9 Tof 4/4 * Trk Inner (all inc.) ± ± ± ± ± 1.0 TRD * !ECAL ± ± ± ± ± 0.8 ECAL * !TRD ± ± <0.001 TRD * ECAL ± ± ± ± ± 0.03 !TRD * !ECAL ± ± 0.04 < ± 0.4 Geometric factors for various detector sets and acceptance planes combinations (in cm 2 sr)

ToyMC checks: TOF 4/4 * TRD * ECAL * Trk Inner (all) This picture should corresponds to our preselection, some differences due to: finite rigidity of ISS particles (smoother edges) not isotropic yet (no cutoff requirement) toy mc has no “dead” TRK ladders

ToyMC checks: TOF 4/4 * TRD * ECAL * Trk Inner * !L9 * L1

ToyMC checks: TOF 4/4 * TRD * ECAL * Trk Inner * !L9 * !L1

ToyMC checks: TOF 4/4 * TRD * ECAL * Trk Inner * L9 * L1

ToyMC next step. Adding magnetic field