1 / 22

Calibration of the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter with first LHC data

IPRD10 Siena, June 7-10 2010 . Calibration of the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter with first LHC data. Maria Margherita Obertino ( Universita ’ del Piemonte Orientale – INFN Torino) On behalf of the CMS ECAL Collaboration. OUTLINE. The CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter (ECAL)

ursala
Download Presentation

Calibration of the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter with first LHC data

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. IPRD10 Siena, June 7-10 2010 Calibration of the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter with first LHC data Maria MargheritaObertino (Universita’ del Piemonte Orientale – INFN Torino) On behalf of the CMS ECAL Collaboration

  2. OUTLINE • The CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter (ECAL) • Pre-calibration at the LHC startup • Results with very first collisions • Calibration streams • 2010 plans

  3. ECAL • Hermetic homogeneous calorimeter made of PbWO4 • Crystals • Barrel (EB) [|h|<1.48 ] • 36 Supermodules (SM) with 1700 crystals each • Photodetectors: APD • Endcaps (EE) [1.48<|h|<3.0 ] • 2 Endcap sides, each 7324 crystals • Photodetectors: VPT • Preshower (ES) [1.65<|h|<2.6 ] • sampling calorimeter (lead, silicon strips) Supermodule ES Energy resolution : EE • Target value: 0.5% • Crucial dependence on the channel • to channel inter-calibration precision.

  4. PRE-CALIBRATION Extensive10 years long pre-calibration program carried out before ECAL installation in CMS. Laboratory measurements during crystal qualification phase (2000-2006) • EB: Light Yield Measurements • Intercalibration precision ~4.5-6.0% • EE: Light Yield + VPT gain Measurements • Intercalibration precision ~8%

  5. PRE-CALIBRATION Extensive10 years long pre-calibration program carried out before ECAL installation in CMS. Laboratory measurements during crystal qualification phase (2000-2006) • EB: Light Yield Measurements • Intercalibration precision ~4.5-6.0% • EE: Light Yield + VPT gain Measurements • Intercalibration precision ~8% • 36 EB SMsoperated on a cosmic ray stand for a period of ~1 week • Deposited energy per crystal ~ 300 MeV Cosmic muons Channel intercalibration with cosmic muons (2006-2007) Mean intercalibration precision ~1.5% EB SM h=0 h=1.48

  6. PRE-CALIBRATION Test Beam at CERN 90-120 GeV electrons (2000-2006) • 10 EB SMs • Intercalibration precision • ~0.3% • 460 EE crystals • Intercalibration precision • <1%

  7. PRE-CALIBRATION Test Beam at CERN 90-120 GeV electrons (2000-2006) • 10 EB SMs • Intercalibration precision • ~0.3% • 460 EE crystals • Intercalibration precision • <1% Beam splash: in September 2008 and November 2009 beam was circulated in LHC, stopped in collimators 150 m away from CMS • All EE crystals • Intercalibration • precision ~6%

  8. ACHIEVEMENT WITH PRE-CALIBRATION • In EB(from 11% to 0.3-2.2%) • LY, cosmic, test beam. • Combination strategy: • Select best calibration available • Combine when comparable precision from two sources • In EE (from 27% to 5%) • Test beam (460 crytals) • Combination of LY • and beam splash 27% 11% RMS of the constant distribution gives indication of inhomogeneity at the construction

  9. ENERGY SCALE: ADC to GeV • ECAL energy scale fixed by Test Beam data in Barrel and Endcap separately • 66.67 MeV/ADC in EE • 38.01 MeV/ADC for EB Distribution of 5x5 amplitude sum (S25) with and without intercalibration for EE crystals exposed to 120 GeV electron beam. • Confirmed later in dE/dx • analysis with cosmics(*) and in collisions withp0/h mass peak. • Waiting for higher mass resonances to check the scale • in-situ at high energy. INTERCALIBRATION 120 GeV (*) presented by F.DeGuio

  10. IN-SITU CALIBRATION • Several methods to calibrate in-situ: • Laser monitoring: correction for crystal transparency • changes. • Due to very low radiation damage, negligible variation is expected at the • startup.

  11. IN-SITU CALIBRATION • Several methods to calibrate in-situ: • Laser monitoring: correction for crystal transparency • changes. • Due to very low radiation damage, negligible variation is expected at the • startup. • f-symmetry method: intercalibration for crystals at the same • pseudorapidity. • Based on invariance around the beam axis of the energy flow in minimum • bias events. • Calibration performed comparing the total energy deposited in each • crystal with the mean of the distribution of the total energies for all crystals • at the same pseudorapidity

  12. IN-SITU CALIBRATION • Several methods to calibrate in-situ: • Laser monitoring: correction for crystal transparency • changes. • Due to very low radiation damage, negligible variation is expected at the • startup. • f-symmetry method: intercalibration for crystals at the same • pseudorapidity. • Based on invariance around the beam axis of the energy flow in minimum • bias events. • Calibration performed comparing the total energy deposited in each • crystal with the mean of the distribution of the total energies for all crystals • at the same pseudorapidity • p0 and h method: single crystal intercalibration • Constants derived using unconverted g’s from p0 and h decay reconstructed • in 3x3 matrices • The reconstructed mass is used to determine the photon energy

  13. IN-SITU CALIBRATION • Several methods to calibrate in-situ: • Laser monitoring: correction for crystal transparency • changes. • Due to very low radiation damage, negligible variation is expected at the • startup. • f-symmetry method: intercalibration for crystals at the same • pseudorapidity. • Based on invariance around the beam axis of the energy flow in minimum • bias events. • Calibration performed comparing the total energy deposited in each • crystal with the mean of the distribution of the total energies for all crystals • at the same pseudorapidity • p0 and h method: single crystal intercalibration • Constants derived using unconverted g’s from p0 and h decay reconstructed • in 3x3 matrices • The reconstructed mass is used as a constraint on photon energy • High energy electrons from W and Z decays (J/y under test) • High luminosity required. Helpful at the startup only for energy scale.

  14. SUPERMODULE RELATIVE SCALE The relative energy scale of the barrel SMsis the first calibration with collisions. • First results in 2009 with ~0.01 nb-1 collected at • Scale derived in 2010 with ~0.4 nb-1 collected at • Systematic error: 0.5% (see next slide) • Statistical error negligible w.r.t. systematic one CMS Preliminary CMS Preliminary Tested with beam • f-symmetry data • p0 data

  15. SUPERMODULE RELATIVE SCALE In-situ SM relative scale defined as the weighted average of p0 andf-symmetry results. Distribution of the relative scale of 10 SMscalibrated with test beam electrons. Distribution of the relative scale of 26 SMs calibrated with cosmic rays. CMS Preliminary CMS Preliminary The RMS is 1.2%±0.2% is consistent with the expected precision of cosmic ray scale. The RMS of 0.5%±0.1% estimates the current precision of the combined in-situ regional scale calibration.

  16. RECONSTRUCTED p0 gg PEAK • L = 0.43 nb-1 • PT (g) > 0.4 GeV, PT(ggpair) > 1.0 GeV(pure ECAL selection) • Good agreement observed for the fitted peak width and • Signal/Background. • The fitted mass agrees with the expectation to within 1%. • Number ofp0 from the fit: 1.46 106 MC DATA

  17. RECONSTRUCTED hgg PEAK • L = 0.43 nb-1 • PT (g) > 0.5 GeV, PT(ggpair) > 2.5 GeV(pure ECAL selection) • Good agreement observed for the fitted peak width and • Signal/Background • Number ofh from the fit: 2.55 104 DATA MC

  18. CALIBRATION STREAM In CMS dedicated streams are implemented for calibration. Use events accepted by Level 1 triggers in order to accumulate millions of events for a quick channel intercalibration. In p0 and f-symmetry streams, only few tens of “useful”crystal hits are stored for each accepted event. The output rate is close to 1kHz per stream. Calibration stream commissioned with collision data.

  19. PLANS FOR 2010 • Improve crystal calibration down to 1% in the whole EB with few pb-1. • Reach the goal of 0.5% precision in EB by the end of the year with • ~10pb-1 L=21030 cm-2s-1 • Improve EE crystal calibration down from 5% to 1-2%. • Set the absolute scale to few permille.

  20. SUMMARY • ECAL crystal intercalibration in very good shape. 0.3%-2% in EB 5% in EE • First calibration result with collision data is SM relative scale in EB. • p0and f-symmetry in agreement. 3 SMs to be rescaled. • Collected statistics (~10 nb-1 at 26th May) good for regional • intercalibration (5x5 matrix). • Calibration streams commissioned. • 2010 goals: reach the 0.5% calibration precision in EB and improve • EE calibration.

  21. backup

  22. CALIBRATION STREAM Calibration stream commissioned with collision data. Higher transverse energy cuts in calibration stream, better S/B. ~1000p0/(crystal/pb-1) at L=21030cm-2s-1

More Related