1 / 43

Pile-Up Pulse Decomposition Study: Analysis & Parameterization of Pad Response Function

This study delves into the decomposition of pile-up pulses, pulse identification through fitting methods, statistics, efficiency, and residual analysis. It explores the Pad Response Function, smearing effects, and experimental measurements. Various algorithms for pulse identification and shape parameterization are discussed, along with the analysis of single pulse, shoulder pulse, and failed fitting scenarios. Additionally, the study looks into pulse separation, efficiency percentages, and the impact of smearing effects on the Pad Response Function.

nguyet
Download Presentation

Pile-Up Pulse Decomposition Study: Analysis & Parameterization of Pad Response Function

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TPC Meeting Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica Jia-Ye Chen 2007.6.21

  2. Outline • Pile-up Pulse Decomposition Study • Pulse Identification, Fitting (Well & Failure) • Statistics, Efficiency, Residual and Further more ... • Pad Response Function (PRF) • Smearing Effect and Parameterization of PRF • Experimental Measurement & Analysis

  3. Pile-up Pulse Decompisition • Algorithm for Identification • Single Pulse & Shape Parameterization • Pile-up Pulse, Shoulder Pulse and Coupled • Failed Fitting (small pulse, plateau pulse) • Efficiency : Percentage of Pulse • Residual • Question & Problem

  4. Algorithm for Identification • Pile-up Pulse • peakAdc > threshold (dynamic threshold) • Separation of peakTdc > 2 clocks • Pulse valley away from prevPeakTdc > 2 clocks • Shoulder Pulse ( By Su-Yin Wang ) • Δ(ΔADC ) < -8. • Separation to neighboring peakTdc > 3.

  5. Single Pulse

  6. Single Pulse

  7. Pile-up Pulse

  8. Pile-up Pulse

  9. Shoulder Pulse

  10. Shoulder Pulse

  11. Shoulder Pulse

  12. Pile-up & Shoulder Pulse

  13. Failed Pulse : Saturated

  14. Failed Pulse : Saturated

  15. Percentage of Pulse ID • number pileup pulse = 76946 • number of single pulse = 41787 (54.31%) • number of double pulse = 33531 (43.58%) • number of triple pulse = 1294 ( 1.68%) • number of quadruple pulse = 334 ( 0.43%) Pileup GOOD • number of good pulse = 2692664 • number of single pulse = 2198194 (81.64%) • number of double pulse = 484378 (17.99%) • number of triple pulse = 7106 ( 0.26%) • number of quadruple pulse = 2986 ( 0.11%)

  16. Percentage of Failure • number of pileup pulse = 54260 • number of single pulse = 30534 (56.24%) • number of double pulse = 22563 (41.58%) • number of triple pulse = 956 ( 1.76%) • number of quadruple pulse = 247 ( 0.46%) • number of (1) pulse =18 (0.0074%) • (percentage in double pulse (0.0177%)) • (chi_square>4 , single pulse) • number of (1+2+3+4) pulse =89 (0.16%) • (percentage in double pulse (0.39%)) • (chi_square>4 , single pulse)

  17. Efficiency & Residual Run 30501 : First 500 Events & only double-pulse event w/o triple-, quadru-, … NEW 1.5 Events/sec OLD 6 Events/sec

  18. Question & Problem • Can we believe the fitting? • Yes, which should be fitted, which not? • Polynomial Approximation, instead of exact Error Function Fitting? • Computing Time : much slower than previous one.

  19. Smearing Effects to PRF

  20. FWHM of the PRF TRIUMF TPC Pad rows are parallel to the sense wire.

  21. Angle(T,W) vs Angle(P,W)

  22. Angle(T,W) vs Angle(P,W)

  23. Angle(T,W) vs Angle(P,W)

  24. Angle(T,W) vs Angle(P,W)

  25. Angle(P,W) Slices

  26. Angle(P,W) Slices

  27. Angle(P,W) Slices

  28. Angle(P,W) Slices

  29. Angle(P,W) Slices

  30. Angle(P,W) Slices

  31. Angle(P,W) Slices

  32. Angle(P,W) Slices

  33. Angle(P,W) Slices

  34. Angle(P,W) Slices

  35. Angle(P,W) Slices

  36. Angle(P,W) Slices

  37. Parameterization of PRF

  38. Parameterization of PRF

  39. Backup Slices

  40. Pad Response Function • Width of PRF • Direct measure of the power to distinguish between two close-by coordinates. • Determine the two-track resolution. The induced charge distribution is called “Pad Response Function”.

  41. Parameterization of PRF Under the optimal design of pad width G : the distance between sense wire and cathode plane : chamber-specific pad response width, often normalized to the pad width ΔP by

  42. Smearing Effects to PRF • The transverse diffusion • The angular wire effect • The angle under which the tracks cross the wire-normal. • The E × B effect close to the sense wires • The angular pad effect • If tracks cross the normal on a pad-row under a non-zero angle. • If more than one wire contributes to a pad signal.

  43. Experimental Measurement New TPC Line Fitting (Lab. Frame) By Nakatsugawa Yohei

More Related