1. DESY BT analysis - updates - S. Uozumi Dec-12 th 2011 ScECAL meeting

2. Remaining issues and to-do list Are evaluation method all correct ? N pix region is reasonable ? Behavior of 3 rd config module on x-talk correction – why? Effect of strip response non-uniformity ? CALICE note for systematics Paper draft Topic for today I think those are OK. Writing work – underway.

3. Systematics on Light cross-talk Compare results with cross-talk correction turned on/off, and double. A clear change on constant term with 3 rd config central region No much effect for others.

4. Cross-talk Matrix and correction M ij = Both transverse and longitudinal cross talk is smaller with 3 rd config (0~5%) than 1 st config (5~10%). Cross-talk correction is done for measured signal on each strip (index i) using inversion of cross-talk matrix M : Longitudinal cross-talk Diagonal elements (=1) And transverse cross-talk i = 1, 2, 3 …. i = 10,11,12 ….

5. Cross-talk correction – only one direction Both transverse and longitudinal cross talk correction show similar amount of effect. Presumably effect of strip response non-uniformity? Or its variation ?

6. Toy MC simulation To check effects of shower-leak and strip response non-uniformity, I am trying with a simple toy MC simulation assuming : – Measured energy fractuation With an idean sampling calorimeter, ambiguity of energy measurement comes from  shower,  sampling and  photo-stat. Those all appear in  stat, which we can get total amount from data. So I simply assume : with  stat = 14.0 %. – Longitudinal and lateral shower shape … obtained from data (Daniel’s analysis) – Beam position and profile … obtained from data For each event, number of “hits” is generated according to the resolution function. “Hits” are distributed over calorimeter channels according to assumed shower shape and beam position distributions. To see effect of strip response non-uniformity, calorimeter is segmented to 5 x 5 mm cells at the event generation, and later cells are merged with non-uniformity weight.

7. Input parameters & distributions Nominal num. of hits 1000/GeV with fractuation where  stat =14%, Transverse shower profile : gaussian + 2 exponential tails (see http://ilcphys.kek.jp/meeting/cal/archives/2008-05-09/transverseShape.pdf)http://ilcphys.kek.jp/meeting/cal/archives/2008-05-09/transverseShape.pdf Longitudinal shower shape : Beam profile : gaussian with  beam = 3 mm. Transverse shapes Longitudinal shapes Beam profile

8. Outputs of toy MC (I am still working…) CAL size 9x9cm central region CAL size 9x9cm quarter region Simulated energy spectra CAL size 9x9cm central region Transverse hit distributions integrated for 1000 events

9. Effect of shower leak (I am still working…) Normal CAL size 9x9 cm 26 layers Large CAL size 90x90 cm 52 layers Red : true value  stat = 15.0 %  const = 0.0 % Normal CAL size :  stat = 13.4 + 0.4 %  const = 1.8 + 0.8 % Large CAL size :  stat = 14.1 + 0.2 %  const = 0.0 + 0.4 %

10. Summary so far Working on a simple toy-MC simulation to estimate effects of shower-leak and strip response non-uniformity. It seems to be OK (though not perfect) even without physical shower simulation. Results will follow. To-do : – CALICE note for systematics + toy MC – Paper draft update

11. Backups

12. From CAN-007 (by Daniel)

13. Energy spectra without or with cross-talk correction 1 st config 6 GeV3 rd config 6 GeV RMS/Mean = 6.7 % -> 7.0 %RMS/Mean = 10.9 % -> 11.8 %

14. Plots shown on Dec-6 th

15. Deviation including all uncertainties We can say “Linearity is confirmed to be within + 2%”.

16. Resolution – plot ONLY stat. uncertainty Same with one what we already have in CAN-012. Systematics must be added in terms of  stat and  const.

17. Resolution statistical and systematic uncertainties Systematics from MIP calibration and temp. correction are small enough, while others gives effects of order 0.1 ~ 1 %.

18. ==> sys_MIP.systxt <== 2 0 0 0.0095387 -0.0095387 0.0212333 -0.0212333 2 1 0 0.0133516 -0.0133516 0.022889 -0.022889 2 2 0 0.0680983 -0.0680983 0.0577163 -0.0577163 3 0 0 0.0184793 -0.0184793 0.016356 -0.016356 3 1 0 0.0164871 -0.0164871 0.0167485 -0.0167485 3 2 0 0.0286047 -0.0286047 0.0409721 -0.0409721 ==> sys_Npix.systxt <== 2 0 0 0.0527009 -0.2417 0.62048 -0.15401 2 1 0 0.0725001 0 0.00740997 -0.26662 2 2 0 0.0048995 -0.5437 0.65224 0 3 0 0 0.059098 -0.530101 1.09924 -0.19962 3 1 0 0.0734001 -0.00990033 0.0232298 -0.28046 3 2 0 0 -0.09 0.44967 0 ==> sys_dval.systxt <== 2 0 0 0.0347003 -0.0764996 0.2186 -0.1408 2 1 0 0.0211 -0.0444993 0.118089 -0.09447 2 2 0 0.2212 -0.1128 0.17426 -0.18035 3 0 0 0.0764996 -0.129502 0.34429 -0.24733 3 1 0 0 -0.0421003 0.10988 -0.0535503 3 2 0 0.011 -0.0364006 0.0818001 -0.04023 ==> sys_temp.systxt <== 2 0 0 0.0229901 -0.0229901 0.00844141 -0.00844141 2 1 0 0.0122069 -0.0122069 0.0222885 -0.0222885 2 2 0 0.0939667 -0.0939667 0.0409135 -0.0409135 3 0 0 0.0417832 -0.0417832 0.0170234 -0.0170234 3 1 0 0.0164397 -0.0164397 0.0158716 -0.0158716 3 2 0 0.0410246 -0.0410246 0.0515202 -0.0515202 ==> sys_xtalk.systxt <== 2 0 0 0.0376001 -0.0612989 0.27904 -0.29048 2 1 0 0.101301 -0.074099 0.0636995 -0.0302803 2 2 0 0.202399 -0.0134006 0.65127 -0.76918 3 0 0 0.1592 -0.080201 0.22214 0 3 1 0 0.0534996 -0.00880063 0.40214 -0.0551302 3 2 0 0.0259995 -0.00279993 0.41221 0

19. Review – what we have from CAN-012