Status of MAPS Geometry Simulation Yoshinari Mikami University of Birmingham 17th MAY 2006 MAPS Meeting at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Advanced GAmma Tracking Array
Advertisements

US CMS H1/H2 Issues1 H C A L Dan is interested in the calibration of the HCAL for jets. He defines “R” as the measured energy of a pion, probably in ADC.
Electromagnetic shower in the AHCAL selection criteria data / MonteCarlo comparison of: handling linearity shower shapes CALICE collaboration meeting may.
Adil Khan Kyungpook National university Korea-Japan Joint ScECAL Group Meeting kobe University Japan 3 rd September 2010.
Preshower 15/03/2005 P.Kokkas Preshower September Run Data Analysis P. Kokkas.
LCDG4 at NIU Status and Plans Dhiman Chakraborty, Guilherme Lima, Manuel Martin, Jeremy McCormick, Vishnu Zutshi NICADD / Northern Illinois University.
30 March Global Mice Particle Identification Steve Kahn 30 March 2004 Mice Collaboration Meeting.
March 6th, 2006CALICE meeting, UCL1 Position and angular resolution studies with ECAL TB prototype Introduction Linear fit method Results with 1, 2, 3,
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.
November 30th, 2006MAPS meeting - Anne-Marie Magnan - Imperial College London 1 MAPS simulation Application of charge diffusion on Geant4 simulation and.
GEM DHCAL Simulation Studies J. Yu* Univ. of Texas at Arlington ALCW, July 15, 2003 Cornell University (*on behalf of the UTA team; S. Habib, V. Kaushik,
Calice Meeting / DESY/January 2004D.R. Ward1 David Ward University of Cambridge Test beam requirements? Studies of cuts and models Fluka studies Clustering.
Status of  b Scan Jianchun Wang Syracuse University Representing L b scanners CLEO Meeting 05/11/02.
A preliminary analysis of the CALICE test beam data Dhiman Chakraborty, NIU for the CALICE Collaboration LCWS07, Hamburg, Germany May 29 - June 3, 2007.
October 20th, 2006 A. Mazzacane 1 4 th Concept Software First Results.
17 May 2007LCWS analysis1 LCWS physics analysis work Paul Dauncey.
Simulation of the DHCAL Prototype Lei Xia Argonne National Laboratory American Linear Collider Workshop: Ithaca, NY, July , 2003 Fe absorber Glass.
Algorithm design for MAPS clustering Bradley Hopkinson / Birmingham Introduction: ● Using LDC01 detector model in Mokka ● MAPS Mokka geometry (Yoshi.
1 Progress report on Calorimeter design comparison simulations MICE detector phone conference Rikard Sandström.
Longitudinal shower profile of the DESY and CERN testbeam data in the electromagnetic calorimeter Valeria Bartsch (UCL) & Nigel Watson (Birmingham)
More on Testbeam Analysis FLZ. Stability Checks for TCMT Pedestal stability already shown by Kurt MIP calibration stability Response stability.
Certifying Geant4-based calorimeter simulations for the LCD Dhiman Chakraborty, Guilherme Lima, Jeremy McCormick, Vishnu Zutshi NICADD, NIU ALCWG-Cal Meeting.
1/9/2003 UTA-GEM Simulation Report Venkatesh Kaushik 1 Simulation Study of Digital Hadron Calorimeter Using GEM Venkatesh Kaushik* University of Texas.
Stats update Was asked to provide comparison between toy mc and g4mice at two points along z (middle of first and third absorbers) 10,000 events, step.
Status of the Beamline Simulation A.Somov Jefferson Lab Collaboration Meeting, May 11, 2010.
1 LumiCal Optimization and Design Takashi Maruyama SLAC SiD Workshop, Boulder, September 18, 2008.
1 Material Studies Status Greg, Sunny, Eva, Pasha, Giulia,YKK, … l Simulated large sample Drell-Yan äWith 4.6% X 0 Cu instead of Si layer äCrosschecked.
Beam test results of Tile/fiber EM calorimeter and Simulator construction status 2005/03/05 Detector Niigata University ONO Hiroaki contents.
International Workshop on Linear Colliders, Geneve Muon reconstruction and identification in the ILD detector N. D’Ascenzo, V.Saveliev.
Oct. 22, G.Lima1 Delving Deeper into Geant4 Guilherme Lima DHCal Meeting October 22, 2003.
Event Reconstruction in SiD02 with a Dual Readout Calorimeter Detector Geometry EM Calibration Cerenkov/Scintillator Correction Jet Reconstruction Performance.
Kalanand Mishra April 27, Branching Ratio Measurements of Decays D 0  π - π + π 0, D 0  K - K + π 0 Relative to D 0  K - π + π 0 Giampiero Mancinelli,
1 Calice UK Meeting 27/03/07David Ward Plans; timescales for having analysis results for LCWS Status of current MC/data reconstruction Reconstruction status;
Calibration of the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter with first LHC data
Status of MAPS Geometry Simulation Yoshinari Mikami University of Birmingham 21 th April 2006 MAPS Meeting at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory.
1 Calorimeter in G4MICE Berkeley 10 Feb 2005 Rikard Sandström Geneva University.
M. Dugger, February Triplet polarimeter study Michael Dugger* Arizona State University *Work at ASU is supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation.
V.Dzhordzhadze1 Nosecone Calorimeter Simulation Vasily Dzhordzhadze University of Tennessee Muon Physics and Forward Upgrades Workshop Santa Fe, June 22,
Cluster finding in CALICE calorimeters Chris Ainsley University of Cambridge, UK LCWS 04: Simulation (reconstruction) parallel session 20 April 2004, Paris,
NA62 Gigatracker Working Group 28 July 2009 Massimiliano Fiorini CERN.
© Imperial College LondonPage 1 Tracking & Ecal Positional/Angular Resolution Hakan Yilmaz.
1ECFA/Vienna 16/11/05D.R. Ward David Ward Compare these test beam data with Geant4 and Geant3 Monte Carlos. CALICE has tested an (incomplete) prototype.
Test beam preliminary results D. Di Filippo, P. Massarotti, T. Spadaro.
26 Apr 2009Paul Dauncey1 Digital ECAL: Lecture 3 Paul Dauncey, Imperial College London.
Longitudinal shower profile - CERN electron runs Valeria Bartsch University College London.
1 LumiCal Optimization Simulations Iftach Sadeh Tel Aviv University Collaboration High precision design May 6 th 2008.
Kalanand Mishra June 29, Branching Ratio Measurements of Decays D 0  π - π + π 0, D 0  K - K + π 0 Relative to D 0  K - π + π 0 Giampiero Mancinelli,
18 Sep 2008Paul Dauncey 1 DECAL: Motivation Hence, number of charged particles is an intrinsically better measure than the energy deposited Clearest with.
2005/07/12 (Tue)8th ACFA Full simulator study of muon detector and calorimeter 8th ACFA Workshop at Daegu, Korea 2005/07/12 (Tue) Hiroaki.
Manqi Ruan Discussing & Support: Roman, Francois, Vincent, Supervisor: Z. ZHANG (LAL) & Y. GAO (Tsinghua)) DQ Check for CERN Test.
W Prototype Simulations Linear Collider Physics & Detector Meeting December 15, 2009 Christian Grefe CERN, Bonn University.
Geant4-based detector simulation activities at NICADD Guilherme Lima for the NICADD simulations group December 2003.
Mitglied der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Hit Reconstruction for the Luminosity Monitor March 3 rd 2009 | T. Randriamalala, J. Ritman and T. Stockmanns.
1 Methods of PSD energy calibration. 2 Dependence of energy resolution on many factors Constant term is essential only for energy measurement of single.
DESY BT analysis - updates - S. Uozumi Dec-12 th 2011 ScECAL meeting.
Shower Fractal Dimensional Analysis at PFA Oriented Calorimeter
Physics performance of a DHCAL with various absorber materials Jan BLAHA CALICE Meeting, 16 – 18 Sep. 2009, Lyon, France.
CALICE scintillator HCAL
Hadronic Shower Structure in WHCAL Prototype
Interactions of hadrons in the Si-W ECAL
Background study : muons from the upstream rock
Status of ECAL Optimization Study
Preliminary Results on Non-Projective HCal Simulations
Radiation Backgrounds in the ATLAS New Small Wheel
Imaging crystals with TKR
The n-3He Simulation Using Geant4
Summary of dE/dx studies in silicon and MS in muon system
Michele Faucci Giannelli
Status of CEPC HCAL Optimization Study in Simulation LIU Bing On behalf the CEPC Calorimeter working group.
LC Calorimeter Testbeam Requirements
Presentation transcript:

Status of MAPS Geometry Simulation Yoshinari Mikami University of Birmingham 17th MAY 2006 MAPS Meeting at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

Outline ● Cell size dependence – Mokka and LCIO-v01-07 are used. (Two cellIDs are available.) –  m x  m ~ 100  m x  m cell size variation. ● Incoming Single Electron Energy dependence – Default geometry, MAPS thickness and MAPS geometry ● Single muon test – Comparison between default and MAPS thickness – Comparison with other energy deposit distribution.

Cell size dependence All plots are: 100 GeV Single e- 5,000 events with sensitive thickness is 15  m. #Cell Hits / Event Mean Energy of Cell Hits Energy Deposit / Event Consistency check 3.88 MeV/cm (Si dE/dx) x 15 m m = 5.82 KeV More small cell is interesting.

Mean Energy of Cell Hits with Incoming Single e- Energy dependence Error bar is within in next slide zoom up

Mean Energy of Cell Hits with Incoming Single e- Energy dependence MAPS Energy deposit dose NOT depend on incoming electron beam energy ! Clearly Single Hit Behavior ! Error bar is within

Mean Energy of Cell Hits with Incoming Single e- Energy dependence & Cell size variation

Mean Energy of Cell Hits Default (500 m m thickness, 1cm X 1cm cell) MAPS thickness (15 m m thickness, 1cm X 1cm cell) MAPS (15 m m thickness, 50 m m X 50 m m cell) 20 GeV e-100 GeV e- fraction /-19 KeV /- 0.9 KeV 7.10+/-0.10 KeV /-37 KeV 121 +/- 1.7 KeV 7.19+/-0.10 KeV (190+/-3.8)% (196+/-2.8)% (101.3+/-2.0)% (100GeV/20GeV) MAPS (15 m m thickness, 100 m m X 100 m m cell) /-0.26 KeV 8.62+/-0.27 KeV (103.9+/-4.6)% MAPS (15 m m thickness, 25 m m X 25 m m cell) / KeV 5.73+/-0.18 KeV (100.4+/-4.5)%

#Cell Hits / Event with Incoming Single e- Energy Dependence Error bar is within

Energy Deposit / Event with Incoming Single e- Energy Dependence Linear dependence respectively Fraction compared with default

20 GeV mu- 500 m m thickness 1cm X 1cm cell (5,000 events) Single Muon Energy Deposit (Under study) 20 GeV mu- 15 m m thickness 1cm X 1cm cell (5,000 events) - #Cell_hits / event = 78.7+/- 1.1 (stat) - Mean E of Cell_hits = 100 +/- 1.4 KeV - E deposit / event = / MeV MAPS/Default ratio for mean energy of Cell_hits = (3.72 +/- 0.07) % MAPS/Default ratio for energy deposit per event = (3.68 +/- 0.07) % #Cell_hits / event = /- 1.1 (stat) E deposit / event = /- 4.1 KeV Mean E of Cell_hits = / KeV 40 layers means #Cell_hits / layer ~ > Mean E / layer ~ 7.4 KeV in 15 m m.

Single Electron Energy Deposit MAPS/Default ratio for energy deposit per event = (3.16 +/- 0.06) % 20 GeV e- 15 m m thickness 1cm X 1cm cell (5,000 events) MAPS/Default ratio for mean energy of Cell_hits = (4.31 +/- 0.09) % 20 GeV e- 500 m m thickness 1cm X 1cm cell (5,000 events) - #Cell_hits / event = /- 4.9 (stat) - Mean E of Cell_hits = / MeV - E deposit / event = 471 +/- 6.6 MeV - #Cell_hits / event = /- 3.4 (stat) - Mean E of Cell_hits = /- 0.9 KeV - E deposit / event = /- 0.2 MeV (->Consistent with 3% thickness reduction)

Energy deposit distribution with Cell size dependence 50 m m X 50 m m 100 m m X 100 m m 100 GeV e- 15 m m thickness 25 m m X 25 m m

Energy deposit distributions 20 GeV e- 500 m m thickness 1cm X 1cm cell 20 GeV e- 15 m m thickness 1cm X 1cm cell 100 GeV e- 15 m m thickness 1cm X 1cm cell 20 GeV e- 15 m m thickness 50 m m X 50 m m cell 100 GeV e- 15 m m thickness 50 m m X 50 m m cell default MAPS thickness MAPS 20 GeV e-100 GeV e- (All plots are 5,000 events) 100 GeV e- 500 m m thickness 1cm X 1cm cell

● Status – MAPS Geometry (15 m m thickness x 50 m m x 50 m m cell size) clearly show single hit energy deposit. – 5 m m x 5 m m cell size is under study. (It need modification for bits assignments. <-- We can use provision bit.) ● Next steps – MC study for #MIP hits / cell. – Muon test with small cell size. – Cross-talk/Multi-particle studies with physics events. – Disk/CPU consumption estimate with physics events. ● Future Prospect – Position/Energy resolutions. Status and Future Prospects