1. Ageing correction from electron

2. Outline Latest ageing correction
Comparison correction e/p trending & new fine calibration
Ageing comparing the 2 fine calibrations
Model for ageing
Flux determination
Adjustement of the 2 component
Plans

3. Ageing update Hadron stream used In step of 20 to 40 pb-1
Use fine calibration from early June
( intercell adjustment )
In reference to June EoP result fro each zone calculate the ageing effect
Produce tables : Fine calibration * ageing for the database.
New fine calibration End September
Used for the latest corrections

4. Ageing in Inner zone Zone 1 effect = 16% Zone 2 effect = 6.1%
150 pb-1 still to be added 9 8 7 2 4 6 1 3 5
Delivered Luminosity ( pb-1)

5. Ageing in middle zone 9 8 7 2 4 6 1 3 5 Zone 3 : 11.8% Zone 4 : 6.1%

6. Ageing in outer zone 9 8 7 2 4 6 1 3 5 Zone 5 : 16.7% Zone 6: 10.8%
2 slopes =
< 200pb-1
above

7. Coefficient precision/pertinence
Use the fine calibration coefficient from Dasha in September
Compare to the coefficient derived from ageing trending with e/p for the same period

8. Comparison coefficients
Compare coefficients :
From ageing trend & September fine calibration
Fine calibration

9. Plot difference & profile innery x
Ageing trend-Fine calib/filne calib
Undercorrected in beam region
<> -1.7% ; sigma = 4.4%
up to 10%

10. Middle zone Middle zone Centerd - sigma 4%
- up to 6% miscalibration in beam region

11. Outer zone Centered Sigma ~3.7%
In the central region under calibration

12. Ageing trending The ageing trending is not precise enough
Need to built a model of ageing
Inner part still undercalibrated in central part
Compare the 2 fine calibration period to built a model

13. Ageing comparing the 2 fine calibration period -inner
2 calibrations correlate
6.97 % averaged shift
- 5.4% sigma

14. Ageing comparing the 2 fine calibration period -middle
Strong correlation
~3% ageing
Sigma ~4.7%

15. Ageing comparing the 2 fine calibration period -Outer
Averaged ageing 3.5%
Rms 4.4%

16. Ageing profile y Inner Middle Outer Row number ( different scale)
Profile can be parametrized
Gaussian + exponential ( y) -

17. Ageing profile x 9 8 7 2 4 6 1 3 5 Profile function of x in zone 1 3 5
<Difference of ageing >/cell
2 hypothesis
Fiber radiation damage f(x)
PMT gain from current g(x,cellsize)
Cells have to be renormalized according their surface to get a parametrizaton
For fiber damage the ageing should be smooth in the above plot

18. Built a model for particle flux
Radiation damage on scintillator & fiber depend upon the particle flux in the electromagnetic calorimeter
2 type of components
Neutral component
Charged component

19. Neutral component flux
On bhadron stripped data
Distribution of flux weighted by cluster energy
Corrected by cell surface
Fit Aexp(-br) -> Shape of neutral flux

20. Charged particle flux Take charged cluster weighted by cluster energy
Adjust on the central zone weighted (1/ cell size)
Parametrization A exp(-bx )exp(-cy)

21. Radiation flux
42% Neutral and 58% charged

22. Expected ageing Radiation damage proportionnal to flux
PMT current depends upon cellsize
Contribution of the 2 effects adjusted from fine calibration
62% PMT and 48% radiation
Deviation Sept/June
Modelisation

23. Correction / zone Fine calibration correction - Calculated correction
Outer
Middle
Inner

24. LED correction / Fine calibration

25. Plans Improve flux model
More statistics
Minimum biais event
More fine calibration will help to test the model
Alternative use LED response