Lar response to pions data vs mc
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 22

LAr Response to pions: Data vs MC PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 53 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

LAr Response to pions: Data vs MC. S.Paganis (Wisconsin) with Isabelle Winterger ,Martin Aleksa LAr Week CTB Meeting, CERN, 10-May-2005. Analysis (10.0.2 data+MC). Run: 2100482 20GeV pions Fully combined, have shown previously problems in LAr rec. energy Parabola Energy reconstruction

Download Presentation

LAr Response to pions: Data vs MC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Lar response to pions data vs mc

LAr Response to pions: Data vs MC

S.Paganis (Wisconsin)

with

Isabelle Winterger ,Martin Aleksa

LAr Week CTB Meeting,

CERN, 10-May-2005


Analysis 10 0 2 data mc

Analysis (10.0.2 data+MC)

  • Run: 2100482 20GeV pions

    • Fully combined, have shown previously problems in LAr rec. energy

  • Parabola Energy reconstruction

    • 15ADC “cubicADCcut” in LArRawChannelSimpleBuilder.cxx

    • mA2MEV numbers from EMTB

  • EMTB 3x3 clustering

  • No cluster corrections, No Long. weigths

  • No shower cuts yet.

  • MC: 20k events

    • Charge collection corrections

    • Tried to get “correct” beam profile …

    • ADC2MEV in Digitization step (parabola is the default)

LAr response to pions


Program flow release 10 0 2

Program Flow (release 10.0.2):

jobOptions.G4Ctb_Sim.py

+G4Apps

CTB04 Data

jobOptions.G4Ctb_Dig.py

MC: ADC2MEV happens here

Reconstruction

Data: ADC2MEV here

ESD and CBNT

Thanks to:

Manuel Galas

TBAnalysis on ESD

miniCBNT

Analysis C++ Package

Final Physics Plots

LAr response to pions


Adc mev for mc and data 10 0 2

ADC -> MeV for MC and Data (10.0.2)

Monte Carlo: LArdigitMaker.cxx

Data: LArRawChannelSimpleBuilder.cxx

Differences at present:

  • Difference in the Sampling Fractions

  • Different noise normalization due to ADC2MeV (small)

LAr response to pions


Data 3x3 lar vs total tile energy

Data: 3x3 LAr vs Total tile Energy

Pion LAr MIPs

Electrons

LAr response to pions


Beam profiles

Beam Profiles

MC

Data

Can do better

LAr response to pions


Cleaning cuts

Cleaning cuts

  • For reconstructed energy comparisons:

    • E(MC) = Erec * SFmc/SFdata

  • For visible energy comparisons:

    • E(MC) = Erec * SFmc

    • E(data) = Erec * SFdata

  • muTag to remove muons

  • Etile+ELAr MIP cuts to remove muons

  • ELAr>15GeV, to remove electrons (crude)

    • Don’t want to use shower shape cuts yet (under study)

    • Possible Long electron tail

LAr response to pions


Possible biases

Possible biases:

  • Tile MC has no noise.

  • For data a LAr drift time assumption is made to get the SF

  • LAr MC has noise but it does not perfectly represent the data

  • Cuts on LAr energy cause a bias when scale and shape are different

  • Parabolic fit at low energies?

  • ...

LAr response to pions


Mutag removes a portion of muons

MuTag: removes a portion of muons

LAr response to pions


Zoom in the mip region after cuts

Zoom in the “MIP” region (after cuts)

OLD Plot: April 2005:

we care because MIP region is upstream material insensitive!

MC is broader, slow rising:

due to more noise or the

parabola or …?

LAr response to pions


Noise adc 2 eta 10 phi 8

Noise: ADC[2] eta=10, phi=8

DATA

MC

LAr response to pions


Noise adcpeak

Noise: ADCpeak

DATA

MC

LAr response to pions


Noise reduce the mc noise to 0 6

Noise: Reduce the MC noise to 0.6

DATA

MC

Great match! However …

LAr response to pions


Noise adcpeak still wider

Noise: ADCpeak still wider!

DATA

MC

LAr response to pions


Zoom in the mip region after cuts1

Zoom in the “MIP” region (after cuts)

New Plot: after reducing accordion noise in MC.

we care because MIP region is upstream material insensitive!

Improved agreement and an indication

of the MC EM scale being a few % too

low. However, in the data 5ns ~ 1%

LAr response to pions


Lar energy after simple cuts

LAr Energy after simple cuts

Some disagreement between data and

MC after only SF adjustment.

It seems that there is additional upstream

material, not present in the simulation.

Data

MC

LAr response to pions


Visible energy per lar sampling

Visible Energy per LAr Sampling

Normalization

away from the

noise region

Less energy in MC

More energy in MC

LAr response to pions


Total visible energy lar

Total visible Energy (LAr)

Normalization

away from the

noise region

LAr response to pions


Summary

Summary

  • Reasonable but not perfect agreement 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 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 improvement. Will try to communicate the present progress. Next round, use OFCs

LAr response to pions


Supporting viewgraphs

Supporting Viewgraphs

LAr response to pions


Adc2mev data vs mc

ADC2MEV (Data vs MC)

LAr response to pions


How to get the sf for data an example

How to get the SF for Data (an example)

SF(Presampler h<0.8)=t*W/e/1250 = 0.0496

SF(Accordion h<0.8)=t*W/e/370.37 = 0.18718

LAr response to pions


  • Login