LAr Response to pions: LAr Response to pions: Data vs MC Data vs MC
S.Paganis (Wisconsin)S.Paganis (Wisconsin)with with
Isabelle Winterger ,Martin AleksaIsabelle Winterger ,Martin Aleksa
LAr Week CTB Meeting, LAr Week CTB Meeting, CERN, 10-May-2005CERN, 10-May-2005
10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 2
Analysis (10.0.2 data+MC) Analysis (10.0.2 data+MC)
Run: 2100482 20GeV pionsRun: 2100482 20GeV pions Fully combined, have shown previously problems in
LAr rec. energy Parabola Energy reconstructionParabola Energy reconstruction
15ADC “cubicADCcut” in LArRawChannelSimpleBuilder.cxx
A2MEV numbers from EMTB EMTB 3x3 clusteringEMTB 3x3 clustering No cluster corrections, No Long. weigthsNo cluster corrections, No Long. weigths No shower cuts yet.No shower cuts yet. MC: 20k eventsMC: 20k events
Charge collection corrections Tried to get “correct” beam profile … ADC2MEV in Digitization step (parabola is the default)
10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 3
Program Flow (Program Flow (release 10.0.2release 10.0.2):):
Analysis C++ Package
MC: ADC2MEV happens here
Thanks to:Manuel Galas
Final Physics Plots
jobOptions.G4Ctb_Dig.py
Reconstruction
ESD and CBNT
Data: ADC2MEV here
CTB04 Data jobOptions.G4Ctb_Sim.py
TBAnalysis on ESD
miniCBNT
+G4Apps
10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 4
ADC -> MeV for MC and Data (10.0.2)ADC -> MeV for MC and Data (10.0.2)
ADCADC2MEVE
Noise(ADC)SFADC2MEV
EADC
mcrec
mcmc
Geant
)SF/1(uA2MEVDAC2uAADC2DACADC2MEV
PEDESTALADCpeakADC2MEVE
datavisi
rec
Monte Carlo: LArdigitMaker.cxx
Data: LArRawChannelSimpleBuilder.cxx
Differences at present:
1. Difference in the Sampling Fractions2. Different noise normalization due to ADC2MeV (small)
10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 5
Data: 3x3 LAr vs Total tile Data: 3x3 LAr vs Total tile EnergyEnergy
Electrons
Pion LAr MIPs
10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 7
Cleaning cutsCleaning cuts
For reconstructed energy comparisons:For reconstructed energy comparisons: E(MC) = Erec * SFmc/SFdata
For visible energy comparisons:For visible energy comparisons: E(MC) = Erec * SFmc E(data) = Erec * SFdata
muTag to remove muonsmuTag to remove muons Etile+ELAr MIP cuts to remove muonsEtile+ELAr MIP cuts to remove muons ELAr>15GeV, to remove electrons ELAr>15GeV, to remove electrons
(crude)(crude) Don’t want to use shower shape cuts yet (under
study) Possible Long electron tail
10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 8
Possible biases:Possible biases:
Tile MC has no noise.Tile MC has no noise. For data a LAr drift time assumption is For data a LAr drift time assumption is
made to get the SFmade to get the SF LAr MC has noise but it does not LAr MC has noise but it does not
perfectly represent the dataperfectly represent the data Cuts on LAr energy cause a bias when Cuts on LAr energy cause a bias when
scale and shape are differentscale and shape are different Parabolic fit at low energies?Parabolic fit at low energies? ......
10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 9
MuTag: removes a portion of MuTag: removes a portion of muonsmuons
10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 10
Zoom in the “MIP” region (after Zoom in the “MIP” region (after cuts)cuts)
MC is broader, slow rising: due to more noise or the parabola or …?
OLD Plot: April 2005: we care because MIP region is upstream material insensitive!
10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 13
Noise: Reduce the MC noise to Noise: Reduce the MC noise to 0.60.6
DATA MC
Great match! However …
10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 15
Zoom in the “MIP” region (after Zoom in the “MIP” region (after cuts)cuts)
Improved agreement and an indicationof the MC EM scale being a few % too low. However, in the data 5ns ~ 1%
New Plot: after reducing accordion noise in MC. we care because MIP region is upstream material insensitive!
10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 16
LAr Energy after simple cutsLAr Energy after simple cuts
Data
MC
Some disagreement between data and MC after only SF adjustment. It seems that there is additional upstream material, not present in the simulation.
10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 17
Visible Energy per LAr Visible Energy per LAr SamplingSampling
More energy in MC
Less energy in MC
Normalization away from the noise region
10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 18
Total visible Energy (LAr)Total visible Energy (LAr)
Normalization away from the noise region
10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 19
SummarySummary
Reasonable but not perfect agreement Reasonable but not perfect agreement between Data and MC:between Data and MC:
MIP region indicates lower EM MC response (few %) Strips vs Middle response indicates some missing
material in the MC description (must be checked).
Discrepancy between DATA and MC for Discrepancy between DATA and MC for very small depositions was resolved: very small depositions was resolved:
due to inconsistent noise in MC and due to the ADCpeak parabola calculation (move to
OFCs)
Tile colleagues confirmed MC Tile colleagues confirmed MC improvement. Will try to communicate improvement. Will try to communicate the present progress. Next round, use the present progress. Next round, use OFCsOFCs
10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 21
ADC2MEV (Data vs MC)ADC2MEV (Data vs MC)
ADC2DACADC2DAC DAC2VolDAC2Voltt
Volts2Volts2AA A2MeVA2MeV
How:How: RampsRamps 38.147 38.147 uA/VoltuA/Volt
Injection Injection ResistorResistor
(t(tdriftdrift*W)/e *W)/e 1/SF1/SF
PS PS (EMB1)(EMB1)
38.147/R=0.114 nA38.147/R=0.114 nA 12501250
S1 S1 (EMB1) (EMB1)
12.62 nA12.62 nA 370.370370.37033
S2 S2 (EMB1)(EMB1)
37.58 nA37.58 nA 370.370370.37033
S3 S3 (EMB1)(EMB1)
37.58 nA37.58 nA 370.370370.37033
PEDESTALADCpeakADC2MEV recE
10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 22
How to get the SF for Data (an How to get the SF for Data (an example)example)
AccordionA MeV/ 947.328
PresamplerA MeV/ 47.1176
8.0||
AccordionA MeV/ 37.370
PresamplerA MeV/ 1250
8.0||
:tionReconstruc EMTBeam
CeVns
CeVns
19
19
106.1/6.23470AMeVper
:Accordion
106.1/6.23420AMeVper
:Presampler
SF(Presampler <0.8)=t*W/e/1250 = 0.0496SF(Accordion <0.8)=t*W/e/370.37 = 0.18718
uA2MEV/uA2MEVSF)SF/1(uA2MEVuA2MEV visivisi
Top Related