PHOS offline status report Dmitri Peressounko ALICE offline week, 15.11.2010.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
 (1385) ANALYSIS STATUS Enrico Fragiacomo, Massimo Venaruzzo INFN and University Trieste Resonances meeting – CERN – 04/03/2011.
Advertisements

STAR Status of J/  Trigger Simulations for d+Au Running Trigger Board Meeting Dec5, 2002 MC & TU.
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.
Status of  b Scan Jianchun Wang Syracuse University Representing L b scanners CLEO Meeting 05/11/02.
1 Hadronic In-Situ Calibration of the ATLAS Detector N. Davidson The University of Melbourne.
1 HLT – a source of calibration data One of the main tasks of HLT (especially in the first years) –Monitoring of the detector performance –Analysing calibration.
Study of e + e  collisions with a hard initial state photon at BaBar Michel Davier (LAL-Orsay) for the BaBar collaboration TM.
Cynthia HadjidakisTerzo Convegno sulla Fisica di ALICE Detection of photons and electrons in EMCAL Photons, Electrons and  0 at large p T Identification.
FMS review, Sep FPD/FMS: calibrations and offline reconstruction Measurements of inclusive  0 production Reconstruction algorithm - clustering.
Hadronic Resonances in Heavy-Ion Collisions at ALICE A.G. Knospe for the ALICE Collaboration The University of Texas at Austin 25 July 2013.
Photon reconstruction and calorimeter software Mikhail Prokudin.
1 The Study of D and B Meson Semi- leptonic Decay Contributions to the Non-photonic Electrons Xiaoyan Lin CCNU, China/UCLA for the STAR Collaboration 22.
The Transverse detector is made of an array of 256 scintillating fibers coupled to Avalanche PhotoDiodes (APD). The small size of the fibers (5X5mm) results.
06/03/06Calice TB preparation1 HCAL test beam monitoring - online plots & fast analysis - - what do we want to monitor - how do we want to store & communicate.
W  eν The W->eν analysis is a phi uniformity calibration, and only yields relative calibration constants. This means that all of the α’s in a given eta.
Current Status of Hadron Analysis Introduction Hadron PID by PHENIX-TOF  Current status of charged hadron PID  CGL and track projection point on TOF.
PHOS calibration in CDB framework M.Bogolyubsky, Y.Kharlov B.Polichtchouk, S.Sadovsky IHEP, Protvino ALICE off-line week 3 October 2005.
PHOS offline status report Yuri Kharlov ALICE offline week 7 April 2008.
STAR Analysis Meeting, BNL, Dec 2004 Alexandre A. P. Suaide University of Sao Paulo Slide 1 BEMC software and calibration L3 display 200 GeV February.
STAR Collaboration Meeting Rene Bellwied – Wayne State University July 2004 SVT Calibration and STI tracking status An update of work since the SVT review.
1 xCAL monitoring Yu. Guz, IHEP, Protvino I.Machikhiliyan, ITEP, Moscow.
STAR Collaboration Meeting, BNL, Feb 2005 Alexandre A. P. Suaide University of Sao Paulo Slide 1 BEMC software update L3 display 200 GeV February.
Calibration of the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter with first LHC data
1 Behaviour of the Silicon Strip Detector modules for the Alice experiment: simulation and test with minimum ionizing particles Federica Benedosso Utrecht,
1 Lead glass simulations Eliane Epple, TU Munich Kirill Lapidus, INR Moscow Collaboration Meeting XXI March 2010 GSI.
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.
28 June 2010 LHCb week St Petersburg M.N Minard 1 Calorimeter status Hardware status Controls & monitoring Timing alignment Calorimeters calibration Pending.
Study of exclusive radiative B decays with LHCb Galina Pakhlova, (ITEP, Moscow) for LHCb collaboration Advanced Study Institute “Physics at LHC”, LHC Praha-2003,
T0 offline status Alla Maevskaya for T0 team 8 March 2011 ALICE offline week.
LM Feb SSD status and Plans for Year 5 Lilian Martin - SUBATECH STAR Collaboration Meeting BNL - February 2005.
1 A first look at the KEK tracker data with G4MICE Malcolm Ellis 2 nd December 2005.
Optimization of  exclusion cut for the  + and  (1520) analysis Takashi Nakano Based on Draft version of Technical Note 42.
M. Muniruzzaman University of California Riverside For PHENIX Collaboration Reconstruction of  Mesons in K + K - Channel for Au-Au Collisions at  s NN.
NEUTRAL MESON PRODUCTION IN PP AND PB-PB COLLISIONS AT LHC Dmitry Blau, for the ALICE collaboration NRC “Kurchatov Institute” LHC on the March
 -bin Number Tower Calibration (ch/GeV) Desired E T matched gain s  =1.0  =2.0 from electrons slopesMIPs EEMC Towers Calibration Run 3 p+p Used 4 methods.
1 Checks on SDD Data Piergiorgio Cerello, Francesco Prino, Melinda Siciliano.
1 SDD offline status Francesco Prino INFN sezione di Torino ALICE offline week – March 15th 2010.
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.
STAR Collaboration meeting, Nantes Alexandre A. P. Suaide Wayne State University Slide 1 EMC analysis update Just to remember … What we have done.
ScECAL Beam FNAL Short summary & Introduction to analysis S. Uozumi Nov ScECAL meeting.
Mitchell Naisbit University of Manchester A study of the decay using the BaBar detector Mitchell Naisbit – Elba.
ATLAS and the Trigger System The ATLAS (A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS) Experiment is one of the four major experiments operating at the Large Hadron Collider.
Search for High-Mass Resonances in e + e - Jia Liu Madelyne Greene, Lana Muniz, Jane Nachtman Goal for the summer Searching for new particle Z’ --- a massive.
1 Guannan Xie Nuclear Modification Factor of D 0 Mesons in Au+Au Collisions at √s NN = 200 GeV Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory University of Science.
 0 life time analysis updates, preliminary results from Primex experiment 08/13/2007 I.Larin, Hall-B meeting.
Hadronic resonance production in Pb+Pb collisions from the ALICE experiment Anders Knospe on behalf of the ALICE Collaboration The University of Texas.
Update on Diffractive Dijets Hardeep Bansil University of Birmingham 12/07/2013.
06/2006I.Larin PrimEx Collaboration meeting  0 analysis.
1 EMCAL Reconstruction in Pass pp 900 GeV 29/03/2010 Gustavo Conesa Balbastre.
PHOS offline status report Yuri Kharlov ALICE offline week 7 July 2008.
Elliptic flow of D mesons Francesco Prino for the D2H physics analysis group PWG3, April 12 th 2010.
Calibration algorithm and detector monitoring - TPC Marian Ivanov.
ATLAS and the Trigger System The ATLAS (A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS) Experiment [1] is one of the four major experiments operating at the Large Hadron Collider.
1 D *+ production Alexandr Kozlinskiy Thomas Bauer Vanya Belyaev
 0 reconstruction in PHOS and EMCAL Yuri Kharlov IHEP, Protvino EMCAL offline meeting
Pi0 Reconstruction with High p t Photons John Chin-Hao Chen.
Introduction of my work AYAKO HIEI (AYA) Hiroshima Univ 2008/5/30 me.
Charles F. Maguire Vanderbilt University
Commissioning of the ALICE HLT, TPC and PHOS systems
EMCal Offline Code Status: Introduction and tasks
TPC status - Offline Q&A
p0 life time analysis: general method, updates and preliminary result
Quarkonium production in ALICE
First physics from the ALICE electromagnetic calorimeters
CMS Pixel Data Quality Monitoring
Commissioning of the ALICE-PHOS trigger
Report on p0 decay width: analysis updates
Electron PID & trigger using EMCal
Presentation transcript:

PHOS offline status report Dmitri Peressounko ALICE offline week,

Reconstruction status Raw data reconstruction: – Fast fitting with GammaN is implemented. No much improvement neither in Amp, no by using  2 cut => do not use. – Correction for a time stamp by the L1 phase read out of ALTRO trailer. Time gate was introduced to RecoParameters and to Clusterizer to suppress noise. Not used by default, still under investigation. More flexibility on non-linearity correction added: one can choose functional form and parameters from OCDB. Default values not changed yet PHOS offline status2

Online DQM PHOS data quality monitor is implemented as QA AMORE agent. For the DQM shifter a single histogram is shown: the number of cells per event. In pp run the physics events are rare, hence the number of cells is determined by noisy channels. In Pb-Pb run the occupancy of the PHOS detector may be high, so the number of cells is determined by the sum of noise and physics signals PHOS offline status3

PHOS OCDB objects Energy calibration: conversion from ADC counts to GeV High gain/low gain ratio Bad channel map Alignment Reconstruction parameters All objects are produced offline PHOS offline status4

PHOS energy calibration Pre-calibration: adjusting the high-voltage APD bias to provide the same APD gain for all channels. Achieved calibration accuracy: 20-50%; Physics data with pp collisions allowed to improve calibration using equalization of the mean deposited energy per channel from physics events. Achieved calibration accuracy: 6.5%; Final calibration will be finalized using equalization of the  0 peak per channel. Accumulated statistics is still not enough for it. The goal is to achieve calibration accuracy of 1%. Difference between pass1 and pass2 reconstructions for PHOS: – LHC10b: pass1, pass2 – both initial calibration – LHC10c: pass1 – raw calibration, pass2 – latest calibration – LHC10d: pass1 was corrupted due to OCDB error can’t be used, pass 2 OK – LHC10f, g: latest calibration in both passes PHOS offline status

Calibration with PHOS offline status6 For each PHOS cell calculate mean energy in the range E>0.06 GeV Calculate corrections to the CC: C i = const/, where const was adjusted to put π 0 peak to 135 MeV/c 2. Use C i to calculate of the next iteration: recalibrate cell energy with C i recalculate energy and position of the cluster Calibration was found on 70M event sample

Module 4 before calibration PHOS offline status7

Module 4 after calibration PHOS offline status8

PHOS HG/LG calibration PHOS FEE measures energy by 2 ADCs with different gains: High gain: 2 MeV – 2 GeV, 10 bits Low gain: 32 MeV – 32 GeV, 10 bits Ratio HG/LG may vary from channel to channel. Precise value HG/LG is needed to ensure a continues spectrum in the whole range 2 MeV – 32 GeV HG/LG was measured in dedicated LED runs with variable amplitudes. HG/LG is a property of the electric circuit and cannot change in time. One high-statistics LED run is enough to calculate it once and forever PHOS offline status

HG/LG measurements PHOS offline status10 HG/LG ratio varies within RMS 2%. Mean value is different in module 4 compared with modules 2 and 3.

Bad channel map PHOS offline status11 Bad channel map was found off-line from different sources of information: Pedestal runs LED runs with variable amplitude LED runs with zero amplitude Physics runs In total 1371 channels are bad (out of 10752) All three Pedestal+Quality Quality+Noise Quality Pedestal Noise

Track Matching, LHC10c pass2 dz vs z No slope in dz(z) distribution. Still there is some jump between + and – z: 0.33 cm for mod.3 and 0.2 cm for mod 4. (residual TPC decalibration + TPC sector dependence?) PHOS offline status

Track Matching, LHC10c pass2, phi No unique slope for all distributions. Overall offsets: Module 2: -0.7 cm; Module 3: -0.8 cm; Module 4: -0.9 cm PHOS offline status

Timing: Pileup PHOS performance in pp14 Runs analyzed (LHC10e): ,130799,130802, ,130834,130842, ,130848, Wrong bands disappear if PhysicsSelection +Zvtx cut applyed Pileup:

Timing: L1phase shift PHOS performance in pp15 Subtracting: EMCAL/TPC Adding: PHOS

Timing: L1phase shift - Side peaks Single peak at 0 Single peak at -1 Single peak at +1 2 peaks at -1,0 2 peaks at 0,+1 2 peaks at -1,+1 Correct operation: “+”; Side peaks: FEE mis-configuration

Shower shape PHOS offline status17 LHC10e: photons P t >1 GeV/c, contributing to  0 peak 0 = 2.0±0.01  0 = 0.71± = 1.22±0.01  1 = 0.42±0.01 c = -0.59±0.03 MC: simple photons Position of lambda bump is ~10% higher than in MC, width is same. => Result of decalibration. 1 0  

Purity and efficiency PHOS offline status18 EfficiencyS/Bg No Cuts100%0.06 Neutral96%0.10 Dispersion75%0.23 Disp+Neutral72%0.32 Runs 130xxx

Good run selection Runs suitable for physics analysis were selected by studying the output histograms of the analysis train (wagon CaloQA): Cell multiplicity Cell energy spectrum Cluster multiplicity Cluster mean energy Slope of the cluster energy spectrum Number of reconstructed  0 per event PHOS offline status19

QA: Cluster multiplicity and Mean energy PHOS offline status20 E cluster >0.3 GeVE cluster >0.5 GeV

QA Energy slope and Number  0 of per event PHOS offline status21

Invariant mass:  0 and  in pp PHOS offline status LHC10e pass1: 215M events

Tuning MC to reproduce real data PHOS offline status23 Decalibration is imitated by the Gaussian smearing of calibration parameters with  =6.5%. Non-linearity correction was introduced to MC. All corrections to MC are applied in analysis. MC in mass production run always with ideal (residual) OCDB.

 peak position and width in pp Measured mass of  0 and  are consistent with PDG values  a proof of good energy linearity PHOS offline status

Preparation for HI Keep same thresholds and other parameters as for pp =>Use same calibration Possible caveats: too high occupancy and too large clusters Two more branches were switched off in last 2 months =>revisit BadMap

Invariant mass:  0 in Pb-Pb PHOS offline status26

Simulation status Simulation of anchor runs is performed with the PHOS OCDB objects from raw:// - bad channel map and reconstruction parameters. Calibration is taken from residual OCDB, because calibration improves with time, and simulation will not re-run. Applying real calibration parameters is passed to analysis PHOS offline status27

Summary PHOS calibration is an offline task which requires the full available statistics. Conditions: calibration parameters, bad channel map, HG/LG ration are stable. Once they are found, then can be used in pass1 reconstruction for future LHC periods. Further improvement of PHOS calibration requires 10 9 pp events. Until this statistics is accumulated, pass1 and pass2 reconstructions have equally good quality. Dispersion: Still 10% difference between data and MC – investigating Track matching: Accuracy is sufficient for PID cuts. In  direction matching can be improved by modifying “distance” to PHOS for hadrons PHOS offline status28

Backup PHOS offline status29

Track Matching, LHC10e pass1 dz vs z Big jumps between + and – z. Within constant sign regions slope consistent with zero. Average offsets: Module 2: -1.3 cm; Module 3: cm; Module 4: -0.7 cm. Consistent with LHC10c pass PHOS offline status

Track Matching, LHC10e pass1, phi PHOS offline status

MC LHC10d4: Hadrons, dz(z) Slope ~0.2% =>dR~0.9 cm. Should be attributed to the deeper hadron shower than photon PHOS offline status

MC LHC10d4: hadrons, phi PHOS offline status