1convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Calorimeter Algorithms A few remarks on the calo....

1convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003 G.B. for CALGO

Calorimeter Algorithms

A few remarks on the calo. problems

Overview of the CAT force results

From CAT to CALGO

Results of the CALGO workshop

The road ahead

Gregorio Bernardi for the

CALGO and CAT groups


DISCLAIMERDifferent more or less important problems affect the calorimeter

However:

The calorimeter data are “waiting” for other subdetector data improvements in order to go to publication:

The Reprocessing is NEEDED mainly to improve the Tracking

The Calorimeter “fixing” can be done and redone and redone from the TMB’s in a few days.

personal opinion: From the analysis point of view the fake jets problem is, for the moment, our main problem in the calorimeter.


D0 Calorimeter Algorithms Task Force

Members of the Task Force (MAY –JULY 2003)

Gregorio Bernardi (chair), Jonathan Hays, Serban Protopopescu,

Markus Klute, Jan Stark, Robert Zitoun, Vishnu Zutshi

+ Emmanuel Busato, Jean-Roch Vlimant

Charge to the Task Force:

The task force will optimize in collaboration with the Physics and

ID-groups the calorimeter algorithms for precision physics. It will

start from the achievements of the Calorimeter Task Force, continue

to improve the algorithms and propagate them to the physics objects

using as benchmarks the comparison data/simulation of the W (->e nu)

transverse mass spectrum and Jet & Met resolutions in di-jet events.

The task force is expected to coordinate the efforts in the different

groups related to the calorimeter.


Specifically, the task force should:

1) Make progress on the understanding/correction of the calorimeter noise.

2) Finalize the development of an optimized 0-suppression scheme and study

its consequences for MET, EM, Tau and Jet ID.

3) Make progress on the understanding of the EM response/resolution, using

on-line and off-line tools.

4) Make progress on the data/mc agreement of the calo object

reconstruction and of the energy flow algorithm.

5) Use large statistics of W and di-jets events to display how the

progress achieved on points 1-4 propagates in the corresponding

physics distributions.


Correcting the DATAMany problems are not discovered immediately online. - BLS electronics problems - cable swaps - not all hot cells are caught online

Large datasets on tape with some quality issues.These data sometimes suffer from isolated problems. Can fix theseisolated problems and use the data for publication quality analyses.But: need mechanisms to do this.

cal_corr_dst packageTakes raw calorimeter data and fixes known problems

included in reprocessingCan also be included in user analysis jobs

(because we have the individual cell energies in the thumbnail).Requires some effort as calorimeter reconstruction needs to be rerun.

CAT MODEL HAS BEEN TAKEN ON BOARD BY COMMON SAMPLE GROUP C. S. group now centrally fixes the TMBs (while we are waiting for the

result of the p14 reprocessing).


DQ Issues Addressed in Current Version of cal_corr_dst

- Energy sharing problem Draft D0 note: http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/esp_note.ps

- Tower two problem Draft D0 note: http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/tower2/note.ps

- BLS cable swap next slide

Short term project:

kill hot cells found by dq_calo

Web page with latest version of cal_corr_dst:

http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/cal_corr_on_tmb.txt


Most recent addition to cal_corr_dst

J. GardnerCorrection for BLS cable swap:

The “discovery” of the swap was triggered by an analysis plot

/ distribution of all EM candidates:

pT > 25 GeV EM fraction > 0.9 isolation < 0.15 HMx8 < 20

pink boxes: tower two problem

blue boxes: energy sharing problem

red boxes: don’t know yet…

Nice example of constructive feed-back from analysis.

Donuts ? Cable swaps !


Reducing influence of Noise: T42

T42: reject ALL isolated cells below 4 sigmas (and ALL negative energy cells)

Select high signal cells (4 sigma)Keep their significant neighbours (2 sigma)

Thresholds 2 is 2.5 at the moment T42.5

What neighbours means

Available in D0Reco in shadow mode

Not running yet:

We wants to have first a tmbfix w/o T42

Full description is available in DØNotes

4124, 4146


T42 on high energy electronsEstimators for EM candidates in data, when pT>13 GeV

OK !


T42 on Missing and Scalar ET

WZ skim , p13.06 , W e nu selection (ET > 20 GeV, MET > 25 GeV)

Compared to Pythia MC

No T42

After T42


Top group’s alljets skim (reco version p13.06.01) : * Passes the 4JT10 trigger.

* At least 4 jets (JCCB). * HT > 100 GeV (just plain sum of uncorrected JCCB

jets). 20000 events

Jets are JES corrected.No quality cuts applied because jet id distributions change significantly.

t42 no t42

Jets properties before and after T42


Jets not found with new seeding :- mostly low pT - in ICR- large number of proto-jets merging

mean = 0.43mean = 2.22

Jets not found with new seeding:

Jets found in both cases:

about 3-4% less jetswith new seeding

Remove CH and MG cell energies from the seed

tower energy before starting preclustering

(i.e., a p13 seed might have an energy < 500 MeV

in p14)

New Jet Seeding in p14


JET – ID: Plans for the future

High priority task remains reduction of fake jetsAre T42, new jet seeding, hardware fixes enough ?

Jet ID cuts new certification Use L1 confirmation ?

Tuning of Jet ID criteria for ICD region.

Tuning of merging algorithm ?

Consider lowering jet pt threshold 6 GeV (to make analysis at 10 - 12 GeV)


MET subgroup Goals

MET Resolution: related to Jes, T42 …

Treatment of non reconstructed jets

Overall correction strategy of MET Decides how to correct EM/Jets etc..

Understanding of unclustered energy - in QCD processes- in EW events


CALGO: Activities & StructureCALOP - calo hardware & operationsR. Zitoun

cal/icd-softw.Jan Stark/Lee Sawyer

cps-software A. Magerkurth/D.Alton

fps-softwareA. Patwa/A. Turcot

em-id Harald Fox, Jan Stark

tau-idDhiman Chakraborty / Serban Protopopescu

metPatrice Verdier, Sophie Trincaz

jesIa Iashvili/Nirmalya Parua

-id Yurii Maravin Drew Alton

jet-idSlava Kulik Alexander Kupco

l3cal-software

cal-simulationLeslie Groer, Michel Jaffre’

CAT

eflowAnna GoussiouJon Hays

hardware

data taking

slow control

trigger L1/L2

icd

CALGO - calorimeter algorithms & objectsU.Bassler/ G. Bernardi

calib – online

cal – dq Slava Shary,

Jan Stark


Welcome/Goals of the Workshop (15') U. Bassler/G. Bernardi

Shutdown Status/Operation Organization R. Zitoun

Data Quality V. Shary/J. Stark Overview J. Stark zero-bias monitoring & bad cell correction V. Shary

Level 3 (20') V. Buescher

Simulation Status and Prospects L. Groer

Tau-id D. Chakraborty/S. Protopopescu Jet-id S. Kulik/A. Kupco jet-id status and plans S. Kulik jet reconstruction and simulation V. Zutshi Jet and Met while studying Wbb production G. Bernardi

Missing ET (30') S. Trincaz/P. Verdier MET status (15') P. Verdier cal_t42 status (15') J.R. Vlimant

CALORIMETER WORKSHOP contributions


Jet Energy Scale I. Iashvili/N. Parua

JES status and plans I.Iashili

Response measurement for b-jets T.Kurca

Showering measurement with MC method J.Rani

Energy Flow (30') A. Goussiou/J. Hays

electron-id/calibration H. Fox/J. Stark

Introduction H. Fox/J. Stark

EM reconstruction packages S. Crépé-Renaudin

H-matrix, data/MC agreement M. Jaffré/T. Vu Anh

Electron likelihood (2*) J. Kozminski, S.-J. Park

EM scale corrections (10') S. Kermiche

photon-id D. Alton/Y. Maravin

FPS software J. Lazaflores/A.Patwa

CPS Status D. Alton


Jet Energy Scale Offset (p13.06 data, p13.08 MC)

Response (p13.06 data, p13.08 MC)

New ICR correction (p13.06 data, p13.08 MC)same as previous correction in data (~25%), smaller in MC (11% 6.5%)

Special Min Bias runs Pythia UE + 0.8 minbias


OffsetLuminosity dependence OK

ResponseIncreased statistics: 15 55 pb-1

EM scale included Systematics: background, topology,

vertexMC used for extrapolation at high

energiesTotal

in central region: 9.5% 5.5%

JES: Smaller Uncertainty

|η|=0.0


Response: b-jets vs q-jets (MPF method)

T

TmisTjet

E

nER

ˆ1


Jet Resolutions

Resolution at ET~50 GeVRun I 11.6%Run II 14% (data/MC)

More to Understand !

Z → bb resolutionvarious algorithms (p13.08, uncor.)

Rcone= 0.5 18.1%Rcone= 0.7 17.5%0.4 kT 18.3%1.0 kT 17.7%

Rcone=0.5before correction 18.1%after JES correction 17.0% Use Tracks+clusters?


JCCA cone jets have no energy correction appliedCellNN calibrated using linear fit to response measured using single charged pion Monte-Carlo.Potential significant improvement: need to calibrate tracks/objects on data. Here results zqq MC with p13


Electron identificationcalorimeter cells

clusters

electron candidates

electron candidatesfor analysis

The whole chain needs to be certified.

Quite some Monte Carlo dependence: geometric corrections, training of H-matrix, analysis, …

sophisticated discriminants:H-matrix, likelihood

cone, cellNN

C/FPS clusters

trackspossibly with dE/dx

calibration - geometric corrections - EM scale corrections - phi cracks

For low-pT non-isolatedelectrons: road method.

Start from tracks, look atenergy deposits in a narrow road around thetrack extrapolated through the calorimeter; see if thesedeposits are EM-like.


Low-pT di-EM triggers in trigger list v12.x

7.6 pb-1

Fit result (signal parameters):

N (one tight) = 614 +/- 113

Mass = 3.040 +/- 0.005 = 0.071 +/- 0.005a = 0.61 +/- 0.12n = 1.7 +/- 1.1

Reconstructed using road method.

Trigger list v12 contains a new low pT di-EM trigger. useful data samples for EM validation studies

Summary of the selection criteria used by this trigger:L1: CEM(2,3.) CEM(1,6.) TTK(2,3.) TTK(1,5.)L2: || restriction to central regionL3: two road electrons ( > 3 GeV and > 5 GeV, one tight one loose)


Data: J/, e+ e- using EM clusters

N (J/Psi) = 152 +/- 15Mass (J/Psi) = 3.166 +/- 0.040 GeVResolution (J/Psi) = 0.382 +/- 0.043 GeV

N (Upsilon) = 70 +/- 18Mass (Upsilon) = 10.31 +/- 0.18 GeVResolution (Ups) = 0.584 +/- 0.144 GeV

Fit results (signal parameters):N (J/Psi) = 82 +/- 9Mass (J/Psi) = 3.166 +/- 0.040 GeVResolution (J/Psi) = 0.305 +/- 0.037 GeV

N (Upsilon) = 55 +/- 13Mass (Upsilon) = 10.12 +/- 0.17 GeVResolution (Ups) = 0.689 +/- 0.190 GeV

HMx8 < 50 HMx8 < 20

comparison of fitted yields gives information on HMx cut efficiency.


Calibration at low Energy

To investigate the high mass, take theHMx8 < 20 sample and compare the massdistributions obtained from clusters and tracks for the same events. mass obtained from tracks appears to bemore reasonable, but need to check resolutions with Monte Carlo.

mass fromEM clusters

mass fromtracks

yield Mass (GeV) resolution (GeV)

clusters

55 +/ 13 10.12 +/- 0.17 0.69 +/- 0.19

tracks 68 +/- 11 9.43 +/- 0.11 0.62 +/- 0.10

Potential calibration Improvement


Electron Resolution

From Monte-Carlo with corrections

S = (0.199 ± 0.008)% N = (0.42 ± 0.08) GeV C = (0.0076 ± 0.0014)%

MC momentum resolution 3% @ 50 GeV

expect: Z mass resolution 2%Z MC 2.2%

Data 4.0% 3.1 %

E

NC

E

S

E


Various Corrections

Corrections in D0reco + emcandidate

Furthercalibrationcorrections

Other trials

MZ/GeV Z/GeV Z/MZ(%)

raw ADC 81.5 3.6 4.4

non linearity 86.7 3.7 4.3

gain correction 86.6 3.6 4.2

crate equalization 86.5 3.6 4.1

geometric correction

90.2 3.6 4.0 ± 0.1

calibration timing 90.2 3.6 4.0

physics timing 90.2 3.6 3.9

calib/phys amplitude

90.0 3.4 3.8

after tuning weights

90.4 3.3 3.7

use 2 calweights 90.4 3.3 3.7

pulser amplitudes 90.2 3.4 3.8

10 slices 90.4 3.3 3.7


Module Boundaries (Phi) ?

CC has 32 modules with =0.2loss of clusters (?)loss of energy

Broader effect on mass

Cluster no vs track angle

Cluster Evs cluster angle

shower profileout in

MZ/GeV Z/GeV Z/MZ

All 90.4 3.3 3.7

||>0.05 91.3 2.8 3.1

||<0.05 89.6 3.2 3.6

smallest distance to crack→

mas

s

Broader effect on mass

Origin ? Statistics ?


Dead Material Simulation

Modeling of the phi cracks (electric fields and charge collection)Modeling of the dead-materialModeling of preamp charge collection signal Improvement done for solenoidImproving the material map for the SMT cables, infrastructure, cooling…


EM ID estimators: data vs MC

p14.03.00 data and MCEM ID v4.12 good electrons, pT > 20 GeV, |

_det| < 2.5, not within cracks, Mee > 50 GeV

At least 1 track match in data

Many distributions are okpT, isolation, transverse shower

shapes in r-phi, EMfractions, HMx41 CC

Discrepancies in a few (MC normally narrower)HMx8 components:#2 (~ logE and z) and #4 (z)Number cells in lower layers CCCC profile/shower shape in and

R HMx6 ?

EM CC Cluster widths in r-phi

EM CC Cluster widths in z


CPSSpatial resolution Resolution in of 1.58 mr (MC 1.5 mr)Resolution in z of 3.2 mm(MC 2.5 mm)

E/E

MC study: energy resolution Green shows the improvement using the CPS.


Progress on Photon IDCurrently, a photon is an electron with no matched central track, Why is this not good?

HMatrix does not work well for electrons, not easy to make it work for photons

NEW TOOLS UNDER STUDY:

Tracks Matching tracks to CPS-EM objectsIsolation

Hit countingUse both CFT and SMT

PSMatching to EM/TRKShapes of clusters, separation?

HMxCheck if electron HMx works well enough on photonsTrain it on a sample of


TRK-CPS-EM matchingFrom a sample of good Zee

candidatesRequire exactly two good EM

objectsMatch them with CPS clusters: 3d floor method:

Match CPS and EM (3d floor) in (, ) space

2 method:Use all floorsFit to a straight line

Wrong clusterGood cluster

d = 0.00683

d = 0.00671

3d floor

3d floor


Priority Tasks

• Em-energy resolutions (electrons, photons)

• Data/simulation agreement: shower shapes, cracks

• Data quality strategy (on-line/off-line)

• Noise understanding / Fake Jets / T42 integration

• J.E.S. / hadronic energy resolution

• Calorimeter compensation studies (E-Flow)

• -id


Future dates

CALGO meetings devoted to specific projects:

October 21st: met corrections, DQ October 28th: em-resolution /

simulation …

p14 certification of calorimeter software and objects: November 21st (JES: Nov. 28th)

god-parenting by CAT

Next calorimeter workshop: December 2nd/3rd or 3rd/4th


Backup slides


METxy

SET>

rms MET-xy

MET Run Selection

Using METB (no CH, except in good JCCB jets)

Pretty stable with time (METxy most sensitive)

Good run selection based on

rms(METxy)

<SET>

91% good runs (feb-jun 2003) could be lower with tighter cutscould be higher with software

correctionsMUST be update for p14 for TMBfixed data

22 yxxy METMETMET

Only good runs


TRK-CPS / TRK-CPS-EM matching

Require exactly two CPS-EM objectsPropagate track to the middle of CPS

Calibrate track propagation Check TRK-CPS relative alignment

Select the closest track in (z, ) space

In the Zee sample:TRK-EM (traditional) matching probability is 84 ± 2% (AA)TRK-CPS-EM matching probability is

floor method: 95.8 ± 1.1% 2 method: 92.8 ± 1.3%

Fake rate estimation is in progress


JES: b-quarks & parton-level

b μν + X

b c μν + X

New semi-leptonic correction for b-jets (p13.08 MC)Added dependence on parent quark (in addition to Emu,

ptrel, Ebjet

Parton-levelCorrection:

light qb-q

1convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Calorimeter Algorithms A few remarks on the calo....

Documents

Transcript of 1convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Calorimeter Algorithms A few remarks on the calo....