LAr Response to pions: Data vs MC (work in progress) S.Paganis (Wisconsin) withIsabelle,Martin LAr+Tile H8 pion CTB Meeting, CERN, 19-April-2005

LAr Response to pions: LAr Response to pions: Data vs MC Data vs MC

(work in progress)(work in progress)

S.Paganis (Wisconsin)S.Paganis (Wisconsin)with with

Isabelle,MartinIsabelle,Martin

LAr+Tile H8 pion CTB Meeting, LAr+Tile H8 pion CTB Meeting, CERN, 19-April-2005CERN, 19-April-2005

19-Apr-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 50MeV “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. MCMC

New “pythonized” version (powerful) Charge collection corrections Tried to get “correct” beam profile … ADC2MEV in Digitization step (parabola is the default)


Program Flow (Program Flow (release 10.0.1release 10.0.1):):

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


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

Data

Differences at present:

1. Difference in the Sampling Fractions2. Different noise normalization due to ADC2MeV (small)


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

MC ADC2MEV(PS) = 7.0MC ADC2MEV(S1) = 2.5MC ADC2MEV(S2) = 12.0

Data ADC2MEV(PS) ~ 7.2Data ADC2MEV(S1) ~ 2.4Data ADC2MEV(S2) ~ vary 10.0,12.0,16.0

PEDESTALADCpeakADC2MEV recE


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


How to get the SF for MCHow to get the SF for MC

Since 10.0.2 the Sampling Fractions Since 10.0.2 the Sampling Fractions are the same as for ATLASare the same as for ATLAS

Example, for Accordion eta<0.8, SF=0.1667

They are calculated (Geant4) They are calculated (Geant4) assuming no upstream material and assuming no upstream material and compensating for charge collection compensating for charge collection effects (ON by default)effects (ON by default)

Eventually we must port them to the data stream, as part of the ADC2MEV factor


Data: 3x3 LAr vs Total tile Data: 3x3 LAr vs Total tile EnergyEnergy

Electrons


Beam ProfilesBeam Profiles

Can do better

Data

MC


Cleaning cuts: any biases?Cleaning cuts: any biases?

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 Etile>2GeV, to remove electrons (crude)Etile>2GeV, to remove electrons (crude)

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

Possible Long electron tail I studied the region Etile<2GeV and ELar<14GeV and I

see small discrepancies (checking also with electrons)


Known biases:Known 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 I haven’t checked LAr MC has noise but I haven’t checked

how representative is of the datahow representative is of 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? ......


MuTag: removes a portion of MuTag: removes a portion of muonsmuons


LAr Energy after simple cutsLAr Energy after simple cuts

DataMC


Zoom in the MIP region (before Zoom in the MIP region (before cuts)cuts)

Uncorrected MC Corrected MC for Sampling Fraction

(Rear situation that data looks better than MC!)


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 …?


Visible Energy per LAr Visible Energy per LAr SamplingSampling

Good Agreement

All Samplings have problems in the noise region; but agreementis good away from it.

Normalization away from the noise region


Total visible Energy (LAr)Total visible Energy (LAr)

Normalization away from the noise region


SummarySummary

Reasonable agreement between Data and Reasonable agreement between Data and MC:MC:

Away from the noise/MIP region After properly correcting MC for Sampling Fraction

difference (however it is data SF that needs to changed in ATHENA !)

Discrepancy between DATA and MC for Discrepancy between DATA and MC for very small depositions. Distributions very small depositions. Distributions around 0 Energy look different. It is around 0 Energy look different. It is possible that MC noise is larger (at least possible that MC noise is larger (at least for the middle).for the middle).

Fully contained pions are being checked Fully contained pions are being checked together with electronstogether with electrons

I am seeing a discrepancy in this run but I’m still checking

Documents

LAr Response to pions: Data vs MC (work in progress) S.Paganis (Wisconsin) withIsabelle,Martin LAr+Tile H8 pion CTB Meeting, CERN, 19-April-2005