R. Zitoun, Stony Brook and LAPP CTF Meeting10 February 2003 1 Much Noise About Nothing? Robert Zitoun Stony Brook and LAPP CTF Meeting February 10, 2003.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Status of CTB04 electron data vs MC analysis Stathes Paganis (Sheffield) Martin Aleksa (CERN) Isabelle Wingerter (LAPP) LAr Week, Cargnano, Italy 13-Sep-05.
Advertisements

STAR Status of J/  Trigger Simulations for d+Au Running Trigger Board Meeting Dec5, 2002 MC & TU.
Reunion de groupe 29 oct. 2002G. Bernardi, LPNHE- Paris Reunion D0 Paris Programme de travail pour Calib On-line Prochaines etapes des etudes sur le bruit.
November 3rd, 2006 CALICE-UK, Manchester - A.-M. Magnan - 1 Noise studies DESY + CERN TB overview Anne-Marie Magnan Imperial College London.
Adil Khan Kyungpook National university Korea-Japan Joint ScECAL Group Meeting kobe University Japan 3 rd September 2010.
June 1, 2005Milagro Collaboration Meeting TPed Shifting and the Crab Curtis Lansdell University of Maryland.
Preshower 15/03/2005 P.Kokkas Preshower September Run Data Analysis P. Kokkas.
On Noise Characterization Michel Lefebvre University of Victoria Physics and Astronomy 14 August 2003.
On Calorimeter Thresholds for Jet Reconstruction Marek Zieliński ( Rochester) Jet MET, 12 February 2008.
Checking the Acd hardware veto setting The hardware veto is generated in the front-end electronics Discriminator with coarse and fine settings Both are.
1Calice-UK Cambridge 9/9/05D.R. Ward David Ward Compare Feb’05 DESY data with Geant4 and Geant3 Monte Carlos. Work in progress – no definitive conclusions.
9/11/2007JC Wang1 Track Resolution Scale, assume equal  meas for different planes. HP3 HP4 All 6 measurements. Without leftmost one. Without rightmost.
GLAST LAT Project Instrument Analysis Workshop 5 – 05/08/29 F. Piron & E. Nuss (IN2P3/LPTA – Montpellier) 1 Comprehensive review of CAL calibrations Gamma-ray.
GLAST LAT Project Software vrvs meeting X. Chen 1 GLAST LAT Project Software vrvs meeting X. Chen 1 Analyses of Muon Calibration Data Xin Chen.
Introduction to Hadronic Final State Reconstruction in Collider Experiments Introduction to Hadronic Final State Reconstruction in Collider Experiments.
1 Calice Analysis Meeting 13/02/07David Ward Just a collection of thoughts to guide us in planning electron analysis In order to end up with a coherent.
ACD calibrations Pedestals Measured from online script Measure PHA w/ HV off, no charge injection Use cyclic triggers ~ ADC counts, very narrow.
CFT Calibration Calibration Workshop Calibration Requirements Calibration Scheme Online Calibration databases.
FMS review, Sep FPD/FMS: calibrations and offline reconstruction Measurements of inclusive  0 production Reconstruction algorithm - clustering.
Michele Faucci Giannelli TILC09, Tsukuba, 18 April 2009 SiW Electromagnetic Calorimeter Testbeam results.
Performance test of STS demonstrators Anton Lymanets 15 th CBM collaboration meeting, April 12 th, 2010.
Optimizing DHCAL single particle energy resolution Lei Xia 1 CALICE Meeting LAPP, Annecy, France September 9 – 11, 2013.
1 Online Calibration of Calorimeter Mrinmoy Bhattacharjee SUNY, Stony Brook Thanks to: D. Schamberger, L. Groer, U. Bassler, B. Olivier, M. Thioye Institutions:
Calorimeter Data Monitoring News Benoit Viaud (LAL-in2p3) B. Viaud, Calo Mtg Aug. 31 st
ATLAS Liquid Argon Calorimeter Monitoring & Data Quality Jessica Levêque Centre de Physique des Particules de Marseille ATLAS Liquid Argon Calorimeter.
Montpellier, November 15, 2003 J. Cvach, TileHCAL and APD readout1 TileHCAL- fibre readout by APD APDs and preamplifiers Energy scan with DESY beam –Energy.
Calorimeter Status Nirmalya Parua, Brook.
A. Gibson, Toronto; Villa Olmo 2009; ATLAS LAr Commissioning October 5, 2009 Commissioning of the ATLAS Liquid Argon Calorimeter Adam Gibson University.
1 Calice UK Meeting 27/03/07David Ward Plans; timescales for having analysis results for LCWS Status of current MC/data reconstruction Reconstruction status;
MPPC Measurements at LSU Brandon Hartfiel LSU Hardware Group Thomas Kutter, Jessica Brinson, Jason Goon, Jinmeng Liu, Jaroslaw Nowak Sam Reid January 2009.
8/26/02 D0 Calorimeter Task Force Stephanie Beauceron LPNHE - Paris 1 Offline zero suppression Aim: Understand the huge value of Missing E T at 1.5  Principally.
Dec.11, 2008 ECL parallel session, Super B1 Results of the run with the new electronics A.Kuzmin, Yu.Usov, V.Shebalin, B.Shwartz 1.New electronics configuration.
PHOS offline status report Dmitri Peressounko ALICE offline week,
Charge Sharing & Hit Identification & Cluster Information.
Correcting the energy sharing problem Jan Stark, LPSC Grenoble CAT Force meeting, May 27 th, 2003 Many thanks to Dean Schamberger, Robert Zitoun and Gregorio.
HBD electronics status All the ADC and XMIT boards are installed. –Top 3 crates are for the ADC, XMIT boards –Bottom crate is for test pulse boards/future.
Ursula Bassler, LPNHE Paris1Collaboration Meeting - 13 Sept Calorimeter: Status & Plans Preamp/ Driver Trig. sum Filter/ Shaper x1 x8 SCA (48 deep)
Results from particle beam tests of the ATLAS liquid argon endcap calorimeters Beam test setup Signal reconstruction Response to electrons  Electromagnetic.
N. Saoulidou, Fermilab, MINOS Collaboration Meeting N. Saoulidou, Fermilab, ND/CC Parallel Session, MINOS Collaboration Meeting R1.18.
Cedar and pre-Daikon Validation ● CC PID parameter based CC sample selections with Birch, Cedar, Carrot and pre-Daikon. ● Cedar validation for use with.
Min-DHCAL: Measurements with Pions Benjamin Freund and José Repond Argonne National Laboratory CALICE Collaboration Meeting Max-Planck-Institute, Munich.
CALOR April Algorithms for the DØ Calorimeter Sophie Trincaz-Duvoid LPNHE – PARIS VI for the DØ collaboration  Calorimeter short description.
DØ Calorimeter Software Meeting April 26, Leslie Groer Columbia UniversityCalorimeter Online Software Status + Needs 1  Examines  Crate Unpacking.
LHCb VELO Upgrade Strip Chip Option: Data Processing Algorithms Giulio Forcolin, Abdul Afandi, Chris Parkes, Tomasz Szumlak* * AGH-Krakow Part I: LCMS.
STAR Collaboration Meeting, BNL – march 2003 Alexandre A. P. Suaide Wayne State University Slide 1 EMC Update Update on EMC –Hardware installed and current.
STAR Analysis Meeting, BNL – oct 2002 Alexandre A. P. Suaide Wayne State University Slide 1 EMC update Status of EMC analysis –Calibration –Transverse.
Issues with cluster calibration + selection cuts for TrigEgamma note Hardeep Bansil University of Birmingham Birmingham ATLAS Weekly Meeting 12/08/2010.
Calibration hits in Jets A proposal for a package analyzing calibration hits inside reconstructed jets Pierre–Antoine Delsart Mohsen Kharzad & Rachid Mazini.
SRS Calibration Michael Phipps, Bob Azmoun, Craig Woody 1.
Update on Diffractive Dijets Hardeep Bansil University of Birmingham 12/07/2013.
Energy Calibration of BESIII EMC  ‘Digi’-calibration Bhabha calibration  0 calibration Radiative Bhabha calibration  ‘Cluster’-calibration.
Calibration Workshop 8 Sept Calorimeter Calibration: Calibration procedure and Database Definition Ursula Bassler, Mrinmoy Bhattacharjee, Leslie.
Testbeam analysis Lesya Shchutska. 2 beam telescope ECAL trigger  Prototype: short bars (3×7.35×114 mm 3 ), W absorber, 21 layer, 18 X 0  Readout: Signal.
Energy Reconstruction in the CALICE Fe-AHCal in Analog and Digital Mode Fe-AHCal testbeam CERN 2007 Coralie Neubüser CALICE Collaboration meeting Argonne,
DØ Calorimeter Task Force Meeting September 26, Leslie Groer Columbia UniversityOffline Zero Suppression Bug 1 Offline zero suppression bug  In.
1 D *+ production Alexandr Kozlinskiy Thomas Bauer Vanya Belyaev
Sumary of the LKr WG R. Fantechi 31/8/2012. SLM readout restart First goal – Test the same configuration as in 2010 (rack TS) – All old power supplies.
CALORIMETER CELL MONITORING TOOL Viacheslav Shary.
Calorimeter Task Force Workshop February 10, 2003 Leslie Groer, Columbia UniversityCalorimeter Software Status 1 Past Calorimeter Software Improvements.
M.D. Nov 27th 2002M0' workshop1 M0’ linearity study  Contents : Electronic injection Laser injection Beam injection Conclusion.
1 Update offline zero suppression on missing E T Aim : Implementation of a true 2.5 cut Offline Studies of resolutions of Missing E T on zero bias events.
ATLAS Tile Calorimeter Data Quality Assessment and Performance
Calorimeter Status Electronics Installation and Commissioning
Missing ET resolution Aim:
Performance of jets algorithms in ATLAS
EZDC spectra reconstruction and calibration
Effect of t42 algorithm on jets
Solving pedestal problem
Online Calibration Online calibration: validation: L3fCalCalibTool –
FFT analysis Goal : Energy calibration ( systematic error estimation)
Presentation transcript:

R. Zitoun, Stony Brook and LAPP CTF Meeting10 February Much Noise About Nothing? Robert Zitoun Stony Brook and LAPP CTF Meeting February 10, 2003

R. Zitoun, Stony Brook and LAPP CTF Meeting10 February Channel noise ADC noise depends on the cell size and/or the preamp: Larger cells -> larger noise Coarse hadronic Amplified by cal_weights (total to visible energy ratio) EM/HAD ~10 MeV/ADC CH ~ 30 MeV/ADC ×1.6 for non linearity Noise/ADC Noise/GeV

R. Zitoun, Stony Brook and LAPP CTF Meeting10 February st line = raw noise/ADC 2 nd = cal weights 3 rd = noise/GeV >100 MeV Channel noise ~40 70 ~ very high noise

R. Zitoun, Stony Brook and LAPP CTF Meeting10 February Occupancy Zero 2.5   gaussian noise 1% a lot of good channels BUT bad channelsugly channels Remaining noise above 2.5  is now at least EM/HAD ~ 300 MeV CH ~ 750 MeV for 450 runs 1%  ← 15% ←100%

R. Zitoun, Stony Brook and LAPP CTF Meeting10 February Bad Channels Should be caught as early as possible Shifters should kill high occupancy channels and they should be replaced quickly 30 rms 10-    occupancy 100%  online pedestal 40 ADC online  2.7—

R. Zitoun, Stony Brook and LAPP CTF Meeting10 February Bad Channels – Effect on MET Killing bad channels does good for MET before ( ) and after ( ) removal  (METx or y) before ( ) and after ( ) removal METxMETy

R. Zitoun, Stony Brook and LAPP CTF Meeting10 February Ugly channels High occupancy ~10-15% Several hypotheses studied Pedestal shift Non gaussian noise L1 SCA dispersion + updown difference Special calibration run

R. Zitoun, Stony Brook and LAPP CTF Meeting10 February Pedestal Shift (1) online pedestal 6ADC 1ADC = 3.1 = –2.1 lower roundingupper rounding

R. Zitoun, Stony Brook and LAPP CTF Meeting10 February Pedestal Shift - Macroscopic Effect –sum of rounded pedestals in a card  measured SET in card

R. Zitoun, Stony Brook and LAPP CTF Meeting10 February Pedestal shift does not explain ugly channels with high occupancy 10 rms 10-    occupancy 10%  online pedestal 2 ADC online  4—4— Pedestal shift (flop!)

R. Zitoun, Stony Brook and LAPP CTF Meeting10 February Gaussian Noise Non gaussian noise ? Compare histo rms to gaussian fit  channel 52 (-15, 33, 3) rms = 2.17  = 2.14  -rms  ↑rms binning effect? ??

R. Zitoun, Stony Brook and LAPP CTF Meeting10 February Non gaussian noise Fix these channels, but what’s the problem?

R. Zitoun, Stony Brook and LAPP CTF Meeting10 February L1 SCA dispersion Noise comes mainly from calorimeter/preamp Also from cell to cell dispersion in L1 SCA (much less in L2 SCA) ADC counts cell # in L1 SCA

R. Zitoun, Stony Brook and LAPP CTF Meeting10 February L1 SCA up-down difference More hardware to fix!!! up down

R. Zitoun, Stony Brook and LAPP CTF Meeting10 February Offline Zero Suppression Data taken with 1.5  zero suppression  from individual calibration runs Reco suppresses at 2.5   from a special run taken on ~September 20 ~ 50 k events to average out any L1 SCA problems Reco suppression with histo rms MC generation with gaussian fit  → MC hot cells

R. Zitoun, Stony Brook and LAPP CTF Meeting10 February Offline Zero Suppression is sometimes wrong! offline suppression 2.5 × 2 = 5 ADC < online 1.5 × 4 ADC = 6 ADC Same effect seen in most channels with high (~10%) occupancy good channelbad channel ↑special run pedestal noise normal noise level→ (symmetrized noise)

R. Zitoun, Stony Brook and LAPP CTF Meeting10 February Suppression with 2.5 × online  Implement 2.5  cut on thumbnails and look at MET (bad cells not removed) Certainly smoother distributions with lower rms before after

R. Zitoun, Stony Brook and LAPP CTF Meeting10 February Last Transparency, Mr Chairperson Present calorimeter OK for x-section measurements But lot of effort still needed to fix the calorimeter (change boards and/or daughter cards) understand its data (calibration strategy) improve its resolution (not addressed here!) Prepare a tool to clean the data (2.5  cut, kill bad cells, ped shifts,...) Would be worth trying it on “noise” jets Please do not drop CAL block from thumbnails before cal is OK Let’s try a 2.5  online cut