1. SCT Analyses on Cosmics

2. Efficiency 2 methods –Online- quick/biased -> located in SCT_Monitoring –Offline- slow/unbiased In agreement with each other - ~80% of modules with >99% efficiency- ~ 10-20% of modules with very low efficiency (the fraction changes among layers) --> Under investigation

3. SCT_Monitoring

4. Layer 1 Layer 0 Layer 2 Layer 3 Offline: unbiased

5. HitMaps of when one hit is found but two are expected. Layer 1 Layer 0 Layer 2Layer 3

6. Comparison of two methods.

7. Noise Excluding noisy modules and just looking at layer 2, side = 1: noise = 2.2 10-5 Plotting number of noise hits found per module (over flow = 10): ( Running over 7642 events) #hits per module

8. Layer 1 Layer 0 Layer 2 Layer 3 Noise: Maps

9. Noisy Modules: LAYER=0 PHI= 8 ETA=-4 SIDE=0 (full module) LAYER=0 PHI= 8 ETA=-4 SIDE=1 (full module) LAYER=0 PHI= 7 ETA= 2 SIDE=0 (Just 1 chip: channels from 640 to 767) LAYER=0 PHI= 7 ETA= 2 SIDE=1 (Just few channels) LAYER=1 PHI= 9 ETA=-4 SIDE=1 (Just channel 599) LAYER=2 PHI= 6 ETA=-2 SIDE=0 (Just channels: 599 and 623) LAYER=3 PHI= 9 ETA=-4 SIDE=0 (full module) LAYER=3 PHI= 9 ETA=-4 SIDE=1 (full module)

10. DAQ errors For run 2586 (condensed mode, any hit) a large fraction of hits report first and second hit errors in the following modules: –LAYER=0 PHI= 6 ETA= 2 –LAYER=0 PHI= 7 ETA=-4 (a noisy module) –LAYER=1 PHI= 6 ETA= 1 –LAYER=1 PHI= 8 ETA=-4 (a noisy module) –LAYER=2 PHI= 4 ETA=-2 (a noisy module) –LAYER=2 PHI= 7 ETA=-4 --> Consistent with what was seen by the DAQ No errors have been detected in other runs.

11. Residuals: Summary Table Data MC LayerSideMeanRMSMeanRMS 000.025450.1492-2.35e-050.1345 01-0.0070540.1596-3.539e-050.1316 100.037480.14141.515e-040.1434 11-0.0002450.13063.731e-040.1087 20-0.011870.1339-8.869e-050.08597 21-0.04520.13968.23e-050.1289 300.053140.16633.161e-040.1423 31-0.032060.1516-3.306e-050.1445

12. Summary residual plots for data. The red line shoes the fit for MC for comparison

13. Residuals: Detail

14. Common Noise Coming from Eva

15. ClusterSize Discrepancy found in test beam

16. ClusterSize: run 2267 vs. MC