Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London1 C++ implementation of a RandomNoiseModifier in digisim Implemented for.

Published by Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London1 C++ implementation of a RandomNoiseModifier in digisim Implemented for."— Presentation transcript:

1 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London1 C++ implementation of a RandomNoiseModifier in digisim Implemented for the ECAL prototype Definition of noise model using DESY and CERN raw data MC studies of digitisation step, noise model first look at DESY data compared to MC

2 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London2 Digisim and Modifiers A modifier acts on SimCalorimeterHits. Do the following steps in that order : –Copy in a map, “uncalibrate”, create RawCalorimeterHits –Add noise to existing cells, and noise-only cells, –Recalibrate and apply threshold, –create CalorimeterHits Random number generator : ROOT (CLHEP) Noise-only cells: for the time being of testbeam prototype, one noise added per cell.  CPU and MEM fine if threshold is high enough. Noise model tested : one value per PCB (= per layer) and eventually adding of a coherent noise per layer: ampl = cohnoise[lay] + randnum.Gaus(pedestal, noise[lay]) - pedestal is chosen per channel between -0.5 and 0.5, - noise[lay] and cohnoise[lay] are Input Parameters given in the steering file.

3 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London3 Steering file to run digisim ############################################ # # Example DigiSim steering file for Marlin # # 20050307 G.Lima - Created # ############################################.begin Global --------------------------------------- # specify one ore more input files (in one ore more lines) LCIOInputFiles inputfile.slcio # the active processors that are called in the given order ActiveProcessors CalHitMapProcessor ActiveProcessors EMDigitizer #ActiveProcessors HCALDigitizer ActiveProcessors CalorimeterHitsProcessor ActiveProcessors OutputProcessor # limit the number of processed records (run+evt): MaxRecordNumber 1000.end Global ----------------------------------------------- ############################################################ # Utility processor. It fills hit maps for use by other processors, # so they don't need to fill the same maps themselves.begin CalHitMapProcessor ProcessorType CalHitMapProcessor.end ------------------------------------------------- ############################################################ # Cal digitizer processor. Instantiates one or more calorimeter hit # "modifiers", which together represent the full digitization process. ############################################################.begin EMDigitizer ProcessorType DigiSimProcessor InputCollection ProtoDesy0205_ProtoSD03 OutputCollection MyRawCalorimeterHit Raw2SimLinksCollection EcalProtoRaw2sim

4 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London4 Specific input parameters for the list of modifiers used ModifierNames EMGaussianGain EMAddRandomNoise EMThreshOnly #EMAddRandomNoise # 1./0.00016*47 = 293750 # modifierName Type Parameters (floats) EMThreshOnly GainDiscrimination 1 0 18 2.5 EMGaussianGain GainDiscrimination 293750 8812 0 0 EMGainThresh GainDiscrimination 1000000 50000 25 1.5 #RandomNoiseModifier Parameters : Noise of each of 30 layers, # plus coherent noise per layer as well, # then DebugMode, SymetryOrder (1=prototype, 2=endcap, 8=barrel, 16=MAPS) # then TimeMean, TimeSigma (to generate a timestamp for the noise hits). EMAddRandomNoise RandomNoiseModifier5.8 6.0 6.0 5.8 6.0 5.8 6.0 6.0 5.7 6.0 5.6 6.1 5.8 6.2 6.0 6.0 5.8 5.9 5.8 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.3 5.7 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 3.0 6.5 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 0 0.end ------------------------------------------------- Inversed calibration and threshold For now on : fixed gain at 47 ADC/MIP, and various threshold. List of modifiers to use in the right order Noise parameters : 30 values (per layer) + 30 values (coherent noise per layer) + debug mode (digisim specific) + symetry order : 1 is prototype + time mean and spread if you want to add a random timeStamp to the noise hits.

5 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London5 Creation of final collection ######################################################### ## # A processor to convert raw hits into calibrated hits..begin CalorimeterHitsProcessor # mandatory processor type (the name of the class) ProcessorType CalorimeterHitsProcessor # Input collections to be converted # InputCollections EcalBarrRawHits HcalBarrRawHits InputCollections MyRawCalorimeterHit # Output collections with calibrated hits # OutputCollections EcalBarrCalibHits HcalBarrCalibHits OutputCollections MyCalorimeterHit # Conversions based on simple factors (at least for now) # 1./47*0.00016 in GeV... EnergyFactor 3.40426e-6 TimeFactor1.0.end ------------------------------------------------- Recalibration

6 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London6 Noise model Study of correlations between 2 channels. In the following : systematic study of channel response 2 by 2, for all layers, only one chip (usually it’s the same for other chips). Use of binary data noise runs at DESY, one muon run (part of 300111) at CERN, before pedestal substraction. Definition of the correlation factor with root

7 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London7 Look at DESY binary data (1) DESY testbeam : correlation between 2 channels for chip#0 and all connected FEs Slot 7 Slot 15 FE3FE4 FE5FE7 FE3 FE5 FE7FE6 FE0 FE1 FE2 0 1

8 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London8 Look at DESY binary data (2) Slot 17 Slot 19 FE4 FE6FE5FE7 FE6 FE0 FE1 FE2 FE3 0 1

9 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London9 DESY TB: 2 types of behaviour Same results have been obtained for all chips, and all studied runs Channel 0 Channel 1 Channel 0 Channel 1 Pedestal vs time Difference between 2 channels RMS = 8.44 Standard deviation for each channel pairs in x direction Standard deviation for each channel pairs in y direction RMS = 7.67 Difference between 2 channels Correct noise High noise Slot 19, FE3 Slot 19, FE5

10 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London10 Summary for DESY TB Slot 15, FE7 and slot19, FE3, corresponding to PCBs number 18_C and 19_C, layers 14 and 15 (starting numbering at 0...)  always uncorrelated with perfect flat pedestals for every studied runs. Slot 7, FE7, slot15, FE5, and slot19, FEs1-5-7, corresponding to PCBs number 12_C, 4_C, 8_C, 5_C, 9_C, that is layers 9, 6, 4, 7, and 0  always correlated, independantly of pedestal behaviour. This seems clearly an added noise which is the same for all channels (the difference between 2 channels make this noise disappear). All other slot have moving pedestals for runs number 230194, 230211, 230216, 230241, and 230263, which creates correlations between channels, probably due to ECAL powering up...................but are perfectly normal for runs 230149, 230212, and 230264.

11 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London11 Look at CERN TB data (1) Part of Run 300111 : pedestal events only. Slot 9 FE4FE5 FE6 FE0 FE1 FE2 FE3 Slot 15 FE4FE5 FE7 FE6 FE0 FE1 FE2 FE3 1 0 0 1 Correlation between 2 channels for chip#0 and all connected FEs

12 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London12 Look at CERN TB data (2) Slot 19 FE4FE5 FE7 FE6 FE1 FE2 FE3 Slot 17 FE4 FE5 FE7 FE6 FE0 FE1 FE2 FE3 0 1 0 1

13 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London13 Flat pedestals ?? Same results for all FEs, chip #0.  correlations don’t come from pedestal instabilities.

14 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London14 Coherent noise or not ? Difference between 2 channels, and definition of width in correlated axis “x” and “y” : x y Root Corr. Factor = 0.52 RMS = 8.19  Coherent noise

15 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London15 Look in more details, slot 9 Correlation between 2 channels for chip#0 and all connected FEs In “x” and in “y” direction FE4 FE5 FE6 FE0 FE1 FE2 FE3 FE4 FE5 FE6 FE0 FE1 FE2 FE3 0 6 12 20

16 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London16 Particularity of slot9-FE1 (PCB 30_C, layer 25, new one) Some channels have a really high noise, but independantly of others. Need more studies ! And check in time...

17 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London17 Correlation between 2 channels for chip#0 and all connected FEs In “x” and in “y” direction Look in more details, slot 15 FE4 FE5 FE7 FE6 FE0 FE1 FE2 FE3 FE4 FE5 FE7 FE6 FE0 FE1 FE2 FE3 0 6 12 20

18 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London18 Correlation between 2 channels for chip#0 and all connected FEs In “x” and in “y” direction Look in more details, slot 17 FE4 FE5 FE7 FE6 FE0 FE1 FE2 FE3 FE4 FE5 FE7 FE6 FE0 FE1 FE2 FE3 0 6 12 20

19 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London19 Correlation between 2 channels for chip#0 and all connected FEs In “x” and in “y” direction Look in more details, slot 19 FE4 FE5 FE7 FE6 FE1 FE2 FE3 FE4 FE5 FE7 FE6 FE1 FE2 FE3 0 6 12 20

20 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London20 Summary for CERN TB data Need to check on several runs over the whole period. Slot15-FE0 (PCB 12_C, layer 1), slot17-FE5 (PCB 4_C, layer 2) : coherent noise  SAME AS IN DESY TB DATA. Slot17-FE6 : had coherent noise @ DESY, is now mixed, depends on channel #.... Need more studies. Slot9-FE1 : differences between channels, can have strong correlations, need more studies and checks in time !! slot19-FE3 (PCB 18_C, layer 14)  was perfect in DESY TB, for slot-FE pair as well as PCB ?!??? Has now coherent noise. PS: Cable #20, not used at DESY.... PCB 5_C had a strong coherent noise before (6 ADC counts) but is now perfect. No problem neither at its previous slot-FE and cable... Has something changed between DESY and CERN for this PCB ?!?

21 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London21 Back to MC studies With this noise model : normal ~ 6 ADC counts noise per layer, and add a coherent noise for the few concerned layers. With DESY TB only layernoiseCoherent noise 15.8 26.0 3 45.8 56.02.1 65.8 76.02.0 86.06.5 95.7 106.01.6 layernoiseCoherent noise 115.6 126.1 135.8 146.2 156.0 166.0 175.8 185.9 195.8 206.0 layernoiseCoherent noise 216.0 226.0 256.3 265.7

22 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London22 Random number generation Comparison ROOT and CLHEP : same results. Choose ROOT for easy SEED number handling. TO BE DONE : get the last Mokka seed as input. Currently, seed is initialized to unix time. Layer 8

23 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London23 Comparision with or without the (float)→(int) rounding step No threshold  blue and red histograms have all noise hits included. For now on, keep the rounding step as it doesn’t change anything in the code. Need to quantify the effect exactly. 2 GeV electrons 0° angle

24 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London24 Normalisation to dataset Data : run 230247, 2GeV electrons with 0° angle, not calibrated ! Constant 47/MIP for all channels applied. Cut double events based on this distribution : cut events with Etot > 0.075 GeV. In the following, only single data events with that cut, and MC (50000 evts) is normalized to 58110 data events. See David’s talk from yesterday : the geometry agreement between DATA and MC is not corrected in the following. Still Mokka06-00.

25 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London25 With or without double events All events Events with E tot < 0.075 GeV

26 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London26 Total energy of hits in layer 8

27 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London27 Layer 25

28 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London28 Total energy with different threshold values Zoom thres 17-18-19-25

29 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London29 Number of hits per channel Remark : for MC, module goes from 1 to 3, and stave from 1 to 3. for DATA, module goes from 2 to 3 (4), and stave from 2 to 4.... Don’t we want to agree on a common encoding ?!???????

30 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London30 Number of hits per channel, log scale Anyway, good agreement in signal channels !!

31 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London31 Conclusions Digisim v01-06 has been released on Calice-CVS with the new code added. Noise value per layer as well as coherent noise are input parameters in the steering file, which allows to change easely the values for test purposes. Still cleaning of data to perform, and use of last version of Mokka with the correct geometry, to really be able to compare with the simulation in details, and refined the noise model to see the effect. Define CERN noise model and comparison data/MC ASAP.

32 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London32 Thank you for your attention

33 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London33 1st type : uncorrelated, slot 19, FE3 This slot-FE is intrinsically uncorrelated : same result is obtained for all runs. This is also the case of slot 15, FE7. Same result is obtained for the 12 chips, and for every channel pair. Run 230241

34 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London34 1st type : uncorrelated, slot 19, FE3 All flat, what is expected. Run 230241

35 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London35 Further checks Correlation ~ 0 Noise ~ 6 For all channels and all chips Difference between 2 channels RMS = 8.44 Standard deviation for each channel pairs in x direction Run 230241 Standard deviation for each channel pairs in y direction

36 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London36 2nd type : correlated, Run 230241, slot 19, FE5 This slot-FE is intrinsically correlated : same result is obtained for all runs. This is also the case of slot7 FE7, slot15 FE5, slot19 FEs 1,5,7. Same result is obtained for the 12 chips, and for every channel pair.

37 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London37 2nd type : correlated, slot 19, FE5 Increasing (and then decreasing ??) pedestals. Flat pedestals. Run 230241 Run 230149

38 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London38 Further checks Correlation ~ 0.8 Standard deviation Difference between 2 channels RMS = 7.67 Difference compatible with normal noise level of 6 and no correlation. Correlation coming from moving pedestals ?? -> NO!! because run 230149 show the same correlation and flat pedestals !! Correct noise High noise (all yellow = ps bug, but in reality no big variations around 14). Runs 230241 and 230149 : same results.

39 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London39 Noise values for all connected channels and chip #0

40 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London40 Total energy per layer, with different noise threshold from 15 to 25 ADC counts

41 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London41 Layers 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

42 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London42 Layers 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

43 September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London43 Layers 20, 21, 22, 26

Download ppt "September 20th, 2006CALICE collaboration meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - IC London1 C++ implementation of a RandomNoiseModifier in digisim Implemented for."

Similar presentations

MC simulation of test beam events Fabrizio Salvatore (RHUL)

MC simulation of test beam events Fabrizio Salvatore (RHUL)
1 The ATLAS Missing E T trigger Pierre-Hugues Beauchemin University of Oxford On behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration Pierre-Hugues Beauchemin University.

1 The ATLAS Missing E T trigger Pierre-Hugues Beauchemin University of Oxford On behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration Pierre-Hugues Beauchemin University.
Electromagnetic shower in the AHCAL selection criteria data / MonteCarlo comparison of: handling linearity shower shapes CALICE collaboration meeting may.

Electromagnetic shower in the AHCAL selection criteria data / MonteCarlo comparison of: handling linearity shower shapes CALICE collaboration meeting may.
November 3rd, 2006 CALICE-UK, Manchester - A.-M. Magnan - 1 Noise studies DESY + CERN TB overview Anne-Marie Magnan Imperial College London.

November 3rd, 2006 CALICE-UK, Manchester - A.-M. Magnan - 1 Noise studies DESY + CERN TB overview Anne-Marie Magnan Imperial College London.
Adil Khan Kyungpook National university Korea-Japan Joint ScECAL Group Meeting kobe University Japan 3 rd September 2010.

Adil Khan Kyungpook National university Korea-Japan Joint ScECAL Group Meeting kobe University Japan 3 rd September 2010.
Digital Filtering Performance in the ATLAS Level-1 Calorimeter Trigger David Hadley on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration.

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 20041 Catherine Fry (working with D Bowerman) Imperial College London.

Adding electronic noise and pedestals to the CALICE simulation LCWS 19 – 23 rd April Catherine Fry (working with D Bowerman) Imperial College London.
1 Calice Meeting 20/9/06David Ward What did we learn from DESY 2005 run? DESY run May 2006. CERN run August 2006. Data/MC comparisons for ECAL.

1 Calice Meeting 20/9/06David Ward What did we learn from DESY 2005 run? DESY run May CERN run August Data/MC comparisons for ECAL.
Anne-Marie Magnan Imperial College London Tuesday, December18th 2007 Calice Software Review -- DESY -- A.-M. Magnan (IC London) 1 Tracking and ECAL reconstruction.

Anne-Marie Magnan Imperial College London Tuesday, December18th 2007 Calice Software Review -- DESY -- A.-M. Magnan (IC London) 1 Tracking and ECAL reconstruction.
28 Feb 2006Digi - Paul Dauncey1 In principle change from simulation output to “raw” information equivalent to that seen in real data Not “reconstruction”,

28 Feb 2006Digi - Paul Dauncey1 In principle change from simulation output to “raw” information equivalent to that seen in real data Not “reconstruction”,
March 6th, 2006CALICE meeting, UCL1 Position and angular resolution studies with ECAL TB prototype Introduction Linear fit method Results with 1, 2, 3,

March 6th, 2006CALICE meeting, UCL1 Position and angular resolution studies with ECAL TB prototype Introduction Linear fit method Results with 1, 2, 3,
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.

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.
November 30th, 2006MAPS meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - Imperial College London 1 MAPS simulation Application of charge diffusion on Geant4 simulation and.

November 30th, 2006MAPS meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - Imperial College London 1 MAPS simulation Application of charge diffusion on Geant4 simulation and.
A preliminary analysis of the CALICE test beam data Dhiman Chakraborty, NIU for the CALICE Collaboration LCWS07, Hamburg, Germany May 29 - June 3, 2007.

A preliminary analysis of the CALICE test beam data Dhiman Chakraborty, NIU for the CALICE Collaboration LCWS07, Hamburg, Germany May 29 - June 3, 2007.
The first testing of the CERC and PCB Version II with cosmic rays Catherine Fry Imperial College London CALICE Meeting, CERN 28 th – 29 th June 2004 Prototype.

The first testing of the CERC and PCB Version II with cosmic rays Catherine Fry Imperial College London CALICE Meeting, CERN 28 th – 29 th June 2004 Prototype.
17 May 2007LCWS analysis1 LCWS physics analysis work Paul Dauncey.

17 May 2007LCWS analysis1 LCWS physics analysis work Paul Dauncey.
Calice Meeting -- Montreal 10th-12th May 2006 Anne-Marie Magnan -- IC London 1 Simulation for CALICE testbeams  Introduction  Test beam configurations.

Calice Meeting -- Montreal 10th-12th May 2006 Anne-Marie Magnan -- IC London 1 Simulation for CALICE testbeams  Introduction  Test beam configurations.
Anne-Marie Magnan Imperial College London CALICE Si-W EM calorimeter Preliminary Results of the testbeams 2006 1 st part On behalf of the CALICE Collaboration.

Anne-Marie Magnan Imperial College London CALICE Si-W EM calorimeter Preliminary Results of the testbeams st part On behalf of the CALICE Collaboration.
Anne-Marie Magnan Imperial College London Kobe, May 11th, 2007 Calice meeting --- Anne-Marie Magnan 1 Status of MC reconstruction MC Reconstruction Chain.

Anne-Marie Magnan Imperial College London Kobe, May 11th, 2007 Calice meeting --- Anne-Marie Magnan 1 Status of MC reconstruction MC Reconstruction Chain.
1 Calice Analysis Meeting 13/02/07David Ward Just a collection of thoughts to guide us in planning electron analysis In order to end up with a coherent.

1 Calice Analysis Meeting 13/02/07David Ward Just a collection of thoughts to guide us in planning electron analysis In order to end up with a coherent.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google