Trigger Anomaly in BFEM? February 13, 2002 Tsunefumi Mizuno and Tune Kamae.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
BFEM Trigger Diagnostics Jan 25, 2002 Tsunefumi Mizuno
Advertisements

Status of DHCAL Slice Test Data Analysis Lei Xia ANL-HEP All results preliminary.
Analysis of chip with 100 events, July 2001 Variation in pixel to pixel average ADC values (fixed pattern noise) Pixel ADC value event to event repeatability.
Alex Moiseev, 02/01/021 ACD VETO SIGNALS AND EFFICIENCY With the recent changes, the following ACD VETO signals will be generated: AEM VETO HIT MAP, created.
1 Background: Use of TKR Trigger One-Shots individual TKR strip channels “true” when analog shaped pulse is above threshold. strips in a plane are OR’d.
Status of the MICE SciFi Simulation Edward McKigney Imperial College London.
1 N. Davidson E/p single hadron energy scale check with minimum bias events Jet Note 8 Meeting 15 th May 2007.
GLAST LAT ProjectIA Workshop 6 – Feb28,2006 Preliminary Studies on the dependence of Arrival Time distributions in the LAT using CAL Low Energy Trigger.
Checking the Acd hardware veto setting The hardware veto is generated in the front-end electronics Discriminator with coarse and fine settings Both are.
Efficiency and Purity Studies Outside the VXD: Applying AxialBarrelTrackfinderZ and GarfieldTrackFinder By: Tyler Rice, Chris Meyer August 21, 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.
S. Ritz1 Checking Out What is Checked In  Need to optimize balance of checking between users and developers. –infuse more of a culture of detailed checking.
Y. Karadzhov MICE MICO First EMR Plots 1.EMR detector has been successfully incorporated in the MICE DAQ system. 2.First 3 days of data taking in MICE.
PositronBG_ ppt 1 Positron BG on GLAST/EGRET GLAST Calibration/Analysis VRVS meeting April 17, 2006 Tsunefumi Mizuno Hiroshima University.
Standalone Muon Seeding Rick Wilkinson. 2 One Problem Solved: Bad Seed Efficiency in Cracks ORCA PTDR Standalone Muon CMSSW.
1 May 27, 2005 Comparison tower A data and Montecarlo OVERVIEW Comparison of MC (EM- v 4r060302p18 ) and tower A data using the “baseline” run (Run )
Octal ASD Certification Tests at Michigan J. Chapman, Tiesheng Dai, & Tuan Bui August 30, CERN.
Analysis Meeting – April 17 '07 Status and plan update for single hadron scale check with minimum bias events N. Davidson.
Characterization MC Particles Missed by Axial-Barrel Reconstruction & Obtaining Perfect Efficiency Using Zpolebbar Event File By: Tyler Rice.
J. Estrada - Fermilab1 AFEII in the test cryostat at DAB J. Estrada, C. Garcia, B. Hoeneisen, P. Rubinov First VLPC spectrum with the TriP chip Z measurement.
TriggerLatchingEffLAT_ ppt1 Status report of overall Trigger and Latching Efficiencies study Instrument Analysis meeting, May 13, 2005 Tsunefumi.
Alex Moiseev NASA/GSFC 12/16/2005 Some ACD Calibration issues I.ACD mip peak monitoring 1. ACD mip peak monitoring requires the measurements to be done.
ACD Calibrations in L&EO Needed Calibrations Pedestals (low and high range) Low range gains via MIP peak positions Veto and HLD discriminator set points.
15 Dec 2010 CERN Sept 2010 beam test: Sensor response study Chris Walmsley and Sam Leveridge (presented by Paul Dauncey) 1Paul Dauncey.
Optimising Cuts for HLT George Talbot Supervisor: Stewart Martin-Haugh.
O After integration and test at SLAC and GSFC, BFEM was shipped to the National Scientific Balloon Facility (NSBF) at Palestine, Texas. The experiment.
1 Japan-US collaboration to develop the “End-to-End simulator” Tsunefumi Mizuno Mar 12, 2003.
Determination of True Attenuation Lengths using SPASE-AMANDA Coincidence Data Tim Miller JHU/APL.
1 Performance of a Magnetised Scintillating Detector for a Neutrino Factory Scoping Study Meeting Rutherford Appleton Lab Tuesday 25 th April 2006 M. Ellis.
© Imperial College LondonPage 1 Tracking & Ecal Positional/Angular Resolution Hakan Yilmaz.
1 BFEM Trigger Diagnostics Mar 12, 2002 Tsunefumi Mizuno Note: For reference, this document includes some works already reported (pages 2-5 and 7). The.
1 A first look at the KEK tracker data with G4MICE Malcolm Ellis 2 nd December 2005.
1 EMC Trigger Summery from RunII and discussion for RunIII H.Torii, Kyoto Univ. ERT Lvl-1 meeting.
Geant4 for GLAST BFEM -Comparison with Distributions in BFEM Data – T. Mizuno, H. Mizushima, S. Ogata, Y. Fukazawa (Hiroshima/SLAC) M. Roterman, P. Valtersson.
RPC Timing Results with Final Splitters Gianpaolo Carlino INFN Napoli The Napoli RPC Group: M.Alviggi, V. Canale, M. Caprio, G.C., R. de Asmundis, M. Della.
Forward Pixel Beamtest Analysis Carsten Rott Purdue University Januar 24, 2001.
3D Event reconstruction in ArgoNeuT Maddalena Antonello and Ornella Palamara 11 gennaio 20161M.Antonello - INFN, LNGS.
Min-DHCAL: Measurements with Pions Benjamin Freund and José Repond Argonne National Laboratory CALICE Collaboration Meeting Max-Planck-Institute, Munich.
CALICE Tungsten HCAL Prototype status Erika Garutti Wolfgang Klempt Erik van der Kraaij CERN LCD International Workshop on Linear Colliders 2010, October.
Anatoli Romaniouk TRT Test manual Some important information p. 2-3Some important information p. 2-3 Noise studies p.4-7Noise studies p.4-7 Operation with.
LHCb VELO Upgrade Strip Chip Option: Data Processing Algorithms Giulio Forcolin, Abdul Afandi, Chris Parkes, Tomasz Szumlak* * AGH-Krakow Part I: LCMS.
Progress report of the GLAST ACD Beam Test at CERN (Backsplash study) simulation and analysis Tsunefumi Mizuno, Hirofumi Mizushima (Hiroshima Univ.) and.
1 Oct 2009Paul Dauncey1 Status of 2D efficiency study Paul Dauncey.
Comparison between BFEM data and G4 simulation October 18, 2001 Balloon Analysis VRVS meeting T. Mizuno, H. Mizushima, Y. Fukazawa, and T. Kamae
HBD Status Report from Run 9 Craig Woody BNL DC Meeting July 8, 2009.
1 Light Yield results from the KEK tracker test using G4MICE M. Ellis Tracker Phone Meeting 25 th January 2006.
Study of Belle Silicon Vertex Detector Intrinsic Resolution Saša Fratina, Jožef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia for Belle SVD group.
1 Performance of a Magnetised Scintillating Detector for a Neutrino Factory Scoping Study Meeting U.C. Irvine Monday 21 st August 2006 M. Ellis & A. Bross.
DN/d  and dN/dp T analysis status Gabor Veres for the working group QCD meeting, Jan 12, 2010.
Progress Report on GEANT Study of Containerized Detectors R. Ray 7/11/03 What’s New Since Last Time?  More detailed container description in GEANT o Slightly.
Data vs MC … issues of the K +- group 1.Accidentals … contribution from Erika & Roberto 2.DC background.
1 Study of Data from the GLAST Balloon Prototype Based on a Geant4 Simulator Tsunefumi Mizuno February 22, Geant4 Work Shop The GLAST Satellite.
Khaled Belkadhi (LLR-Ecole Polytechnique)1 DHCAL Test Beam Results using Full Train Reconstruction Khaled Belkadhi.
After integration and test at SLAC and GSFC, BFEM was shipped to the National Scientific Balloon Facility (NSBF) at Palestine, Texas. The experiment was.
ArgonneResult_ ppt1 Results of PoGO Argonne Beam Test PoGO Collaboration meeting at SLAC, February 7, 2004 Tsunefumi Mizuno
O After the integration and test at SLAC/GSFC, BFEM was shipped to National Scientific Balloon Facility (NSBF) at Palestine, Texas. The experiments was.
Geometry of the ACD Beam Test at CERN (2002) Tsunefumi Mizuno Overview of the Setup: p.2 ACD tile configuration: pp.3-4 Sn Calorimeter:
Acd Veto Latching The Acd front end electronics generate a veto primitive when a discriminator goes above threshold. But. The signal is split: One path.
PFA Study with Jupiter Contents : 1. Introduction 2. GLD-PFA
Tower 8 – X6 anomaly MRB Meeting – 24 August 2005.
Status of AIF analysis Daisuke Kaneko.
GLAST LAT tracker signal simulation and trigger timing study
The Ohio State University CSC Detector Performance Group
TKR to CAL for 16 Towers The usual TKR extrapolation to CAL study, for the 16 tower data. Check calibrations, look for problems, etc. Today -- “work in.
Monitoring SCT Efficiency and Noise
Tower A: A First Look Finding the Data: Login: THIS ONE! user: glast
Studies of the Time over Threshold
Update of G4 simulation -- Development of Cosmic-Ray generator --
Analysis of GLAST Balloon Experiment Data
Clustering-based Studies on the upgraded ITS of the Alice Experiment
Presentation transcript:

Trigger Anomaly in BFEM? February 13, 2002 Tsunefumi Mizuno and Tune Kamae

History (1) Discrepancy between BFEM data and G4 simulation persisted even after reasonably thorough validation G4. “Charged” counts in layers (Run55): Blue:BFEM data, Red: G4 simulation “Neutral” counts in layers (Run55): Blue:BFEM data, Red: G4 simulation

History (2) With help of Tony and Heather, we retrieved the layer numbers participated in the 3-in-row trigger. The methods implemented are getXCapture() and getYCapture (). The layer count distribution (see below) indicates that layer 7, 14 and 15 didn’t participate in L1T.

History (3) We then removed the 3 layers from the G4 simulation of 3-in-row trigger. Agreement between BFEM data and G4 simulation improved greatly for “charged” events (the flux was increased by approx. 20%) but not for “neutral” events.

History (4) Another minor error was found by Dave Lauben: TrigXCapture and TrigYCapture seem to be swapped. The conclusion in the previous slides remain unchanged. not X7, but Y7(layer#15) not Y7, but X7(layer#14) not Y3, but X3(layer#6) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o x x o o x x o x o Hit o o o o o o o x o o o o o o x x x o o x x o o x o x Trig swapped

Trigger efficiency of each layer (1) Hit in the data Trigger fast capture Further study showed apparent “inefficiency” in all layers. Blue histogram below shows counts in data. Red histogram is counts in fast capture. They disagree.

Hit Trigger Select events where layers 0-5 are in the fast capture. Fast capture for Layer 23 seems to be only 50% efficient. Trigger efficiency of each layer (2)

Possible Interpretation (1) Possibility 1) Gate width for “fast capture” (approx. 1us) is too short compared to the signal slew time of SSD, the propagation time through the readout chips in a layer, and variation in the trigger condition compliance. Possibility 2) Some layers are noisier than others and “data” may include accidental hits. Possiblity 3) Some layers are noisier than others and accidental hits prior to the event caused dead time to the fast signal that participated in the trigger.

Study was made if we see any events where no 3-in-row is found in fast capture. All events registered >=3 in-row. We can conclude that fast capture worked for the layers participated in the trigger. A study on fast capture efficiency

A study on frequency of accidental hits Events where a charged-particle passes through all layers were selected. The selection criteria are as follows 1) one or more ACD tiles show PHA above 0.2MIP (charged events) 2) Single track (number of tracks reconstructed is 2 -- x and y) 3) The track is straight (reconstructed value of chi^2 is below 0.1) 4) All 26 layers are hit. Eye-scanned 300 events by the Event Display and counted the number of hits that do not belong to the straight track. The percentage of is only 1-2%, well below the apparent inefficiency In fast capture (typically 10-20%).