1. 1convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Calorimeter Algorithms  A few remarks on the calo. problems  Overview of the CAT force results  From CAT to CALGO  Results of the CALGO workshop  The road ahead Gregorio Bernardi for the CALGO and CAT groups

2. 2convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO DISCLAIMER Different more or less important problems affect the calorimeter However: The calorimeter data are “waiting” for other subdetector data improvements in order to go to publication: The Reprocessing is NEEDED mainly to improve the Tracking The Calorimeter “fixing” can be done and redone and redone from the TMB’s in a few days. personal opinion: From the analysis point of view the fake jets problem is, for the moment, our main problem in the calorimeter.

3. 3convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO D0 Calorimeter Algorithms Task Force Members of the Task Force (MAY –JULY 2003) Gregorio Bernardi (chair), Jonathan Hays, Serban Protopopescu, Markus Klute, Jan Stark, Robert Zitoun, Vishnu Zutshi + Emmanuel Busato, Jean-Roch Vlimant Charge to the Task Force: The task force will optimize in collaboration with the Physics and ID-groups the calorimeter algorithms for precision physics. It will start from the achievements of the Calorimeter Task Force, continue to improve the algorithms and propagate them to the physics objects using as benchmarks the comparison data/simulation of the W (->e nu) transverse mass spectrum and Jet & Met resolutions in di-jet events. The task force is expected to coordinate the efforts in the different groups related to the calorimeter.

4. 4convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Specifically, the task force should: 1) Make progress on the understanding/correction of the calorimeter noise. 2) Finalize the development of an optimized 0-suppression scheme and study its consequences for MET, EM, Tau and Jet ID. 3) Make progress on the understanding of the EM response/resolution, using on-line and off-line tools. 4) Make progress on the data/mc agreement of the calo object reconstruction and of the energy flow algorithm. 5) Use large statistics of W and di-jets events to display how the progress achieved on points 1-4 propagates in the corresponding physics distributions.

5. 5convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Correcting the DATA Many problems are not discovered immediately online. - BLS electronics problems - cable swaps - not all hot cells are caught online  Large datasets on tape with some quality issues. These data sometimes suffer from isolated problems. Can fix these isolated problems and use the data for publication quality analyses. But: need mechanisms to do this.  cal_corr_dst package Takes raw calorimeter data and fixes known problems  included in reprocessing Can also be included in user analysis jobs (because we have the individual cell energies in the thumbnail). Requires some effort as calorimeter reconstruction needs to be rerun. CAT MODEL HAS BEEN TAKEN ON BOARD BY COMMON SAMPLE GROUP C. S. group now centrally fixes the TMBs (while we are waiting for the result of the p14 reprocessing).

6. 6convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO DQ Issues Addressed in Current Version of cal_corr_dst - Energy sharing problem Draft D0 note: http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/esp_note.ps - Tower two problem Draft D0 note: http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/tower2/note.ps - BLS cable swap next slide Short term project: kill hot cells found by dq_calo Web page with latest version of cal_corr_dst: http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/cal_corr_on_tmb.txt

7. 7convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Most recent addition to cal_corr_dst J. Gardner Correction for BLS cable swap: The “discovery” of the swap was triggered by an analysis plot  /  distribution of all EM candidates: p T > 25 GeV EM fraction > 0.9 isolation < 0.15 HMx8 < 20 pink boxes: tower two problem blue boxes: energy sharing problem red boxes: don’t know yet… Nice example of constructive feed-back from analysis. Donuts ? Cable swaps !

8. 8convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Reducing influence of Noise: T42 T42: reject ALL isolated cells below 4 sigmas (and ALL negative energy cells) Select high signal cells (4 sigma) Keep their significant neighbours (2 sigma)  Thresholds 2  is 2.5  at the moment  T42.5 Available in D0Reco in shadow mode Not running yet: We wants to have first a tmbfix w/o T42 Full description is available in DØNotes 4124, 4146

9. 9convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO T42 on high energy electrons Estimators for EM candidates in data, when pT>13 GeV OK !

10. 10convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO T42 on Missing and Scalar E T WZ skim, p13.06, W  e nu selection (E T > 20 GeV, MET > 25 GeV) Compared to Pythia MC No T42 After T42

11. 11convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Top group’s alljets skim (reco version p13.06.01) : * Passes the 4JT10 trigger. * At least 4 jets (JCCB). * HT > 100 GeV (just plain sum of uncorrected JCCB jets).   20000 events Jets are JES corrected. No quality cuts applied because jet id distributions change significantly. t42 no t42 Jets properties before and after T42

12. 12convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Jets not found with new seeding : - mostly low pT - in ICR - large number of proto-jets merging mean = 0.43 mean = 2.22 Jets not found with new seeding: Jets found in both cases: about 3-4% less jets with new seeding Remove CH and MG cell energies from the seed tower energy before starting preclustering (i.e., a p13 seed might have an energy < 500 MeV in p14) New Jet Seeding in p14

13. 13convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO JET – ID: Plans for the future High priority task remains reduction of fake jets Are T42, new jet seeding, hardware fixes enough ? Jet ID cuts  new certification Use L1 confirmation ? Tuning of Jet ID criteria for ICD region. Tuning of merging algorithm ? Consider lowering jet pt threshold 6 GeV (to make analysis at 10 - 12 GeV)

14. 14convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO MET subgroup Goals MET Resolution: related to Jes, T42 … Treatment of non reconstructed jets Overall correction strategy of MET  Decides how to correct EM/Jets etc.. Understanding of unclustered energy - in QCD processes - in EW events

15. 15convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO CALGO: Activities & Structure CALOP - calo hardware & operations R. Zitoun cal/icd-softw. Jan Stark/Lee Sawyer cps-software A. Magerkurth/D.Alton fps-software A. Patwa/A. Turcot em-id Harald Fox, Jan Stark tau-id Dhiman Chakraborty / Serban Protopopescu met Patrice Verdier, Sophie Trincaz jes Ia Iashvili/ Nirmalya Parua  -id Yurii Maravin Drew Alton jet-id Slava Kulik Alexander Kupco l3cal-software cal-simulation Leslie Groer, Michel Jaffre’ CAT eflow Anna Goussiou Jon Hays hardware data taking slow control trigger L1/L2 icd CALGO - calorimeter algorithms & objects U.Bassler/ G. Bernardi calib – online cal – dq Slava Shary, Jan Stark

16. 16convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Welcome/Goals of the Workshop (15') U. Bassler/G. Bernardi Shutdown Status/Operation Organization R. Zitoun Data Quality V. Shary/J. Stark Overview J. Stark zero-bias monitoring & bad cell correction V. Shary Level 3 (20') V. Buescher Simulation Status and Prospects L. Groer Tau-id D. Chakraborty/S. Protopopescu Jet-id S. Kulik/A. Kupco jet-id status and plans S. Kulik jet reconstruction and simulation V. Zutshi Jet and Met while studying Wbb production G. Bernardi Missing ET (30') S. Trincaz/P. Verdier MET status (15') P. Verdier cal_t42 status (15') J.R. Vlimant CALORIMETER WORKSHOP contributions

17. 17convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Jet Energy Scale I. Iashvili/N. Parua JES status and plans I.Iashili Response measurement for b-jets T.Kurca Showering measurement with MC method J.Rani Energy Flow (30') A. Goussiou/J. Hays electron-id/calibration H. Fox/J. Stark Introduction H. Fox/J. Stark EM reconstruction packages S. Crépé-Renaudin H-matrix, data/MC agreement M. Jaffré/T. Vu Anh Electron likelihood (2*) J. Kozminski, S.-J. Park EM scale corrections (10') S. Kermiche photon-id D. Alton/Y. Maravin FPS software J. Lazaflores/A.Patwa CPS Status D. Alton

18. 18convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Jet Energy Scale Offset (p13.06 data, p13.08 MC) Response (p13.06 data, p13.08 MC) New ICR correction (p13.06 data, p13.08 MC) same as previous correction in data (~25%), smaller in MC (11%  6.5%) Special Min Bias runsPythia UE + 0.8 minbias

19. 19convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Offset Luminosity dependence OK Response Increased statistics: 15  55 pb -1 EM scale included Systematics: background, topology, vertex MC used for extrapolation at high energies Total in central region: 9.5%  5.5% JES: Smaller Uncertainty |η|=0.0

20. 20convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Response: b-jets vs q-jets (MPF method)

21. 21convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Jet Resolutions Resolution at E T ~50 GeV Run I11.6% Run II14% (data/MC) More to Understand ! Z → bb resolution various algorithms (p13.08, uncor.) R cone = 0.518.1% R cone = 0.717.5% 0.4 k T 18.3% 1.0 k T 17.7% R cone =0.5 before correction18.1% after JES correction17.0% Use Tracks+clusters?

22. 22convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO JCCA cone jets have no energy correction applied CellNN calibrated using linear fit to response measured using single charged pion Monte-Carlo. Potential significant improvement: need to calibrate tracks/objects on data. Here results z  qq MC with p13

23. 23convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Electron identification calorimeter cells clusters electron candidates for analysis The whole chain needs to be certified. Quite some Monte Carlo dependence: geometric corrections, training of H-matrix, analysis, … sophisticated discriminants: H-matrix, likelihood cone, cellNN C/FPS clusters tracks possibly with dE/dx calibration - geometric corrections - EM scale corrections - phi cracks For low-p T non-isolated electrons: road method. Start from tracks, look at energy deposits in a narrow road around the track extrapolated through the calorimeter; see if these deposits are EM-like.

24. 24convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Low-p T di-EM triggers in trigger list v12.x 7.6 pb -1 Fit result (signal parameters): N (one tight) = 614 +/- 113 Mass= 3.040 +/- 0.005  = 0.071 +/- 0.005 a= 0.61 +/- 0.12 n = 1.7 +/- 1.1 Reconstructed using road method. Trigger list v12 contains a new low p T di-EM trigger.  useful data samples for EM validation studies Summary of the selection criteria used by this trigger: L1:CEM(2,3.) CEM(1,6.) TTK(2,3.) TTK(1,5.) L2:|  | restriction to central region L3:two road electrons ( > 3 GeV and > 5 GeV, one tight one loose)

25. 25convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Data: J/ ,   e + e - using EM clusters N (J/Psi) = 152 +/- 15 Mass (J/Psi) = 3.166 +/- 0.040 GeV Resolution (J/Psi)= 0.382 +/- 0.043 GeV N (Upsilon)= 70 +/- 18 Mass (Upsilon)= 10.31 +/- 0.18 GeV Resolution (Ups) = 0.584 +/- 0.144 GeV Fit results (signal parameters): N (J/Psi) = 82 +/- 9 Mass (J/Psi) = 3.166 +/- 0.040 GeV Resolution (J/Psi)= 0.305 +/- 0.037 GeV N (Upsilon)= 55 +/- 13 Mass (Upsilon)= 10.12 +/- 0.17 GeV Resolution (Ups) = 0.689 +/- 0.190 GeV HMx8 < 50HMx8 < 20 comparison of fitted yields gives information on HMx cut efficiency.

26. 26convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Calibration at low Energy To investigate the high  mass, take the HMx8 < 20 sample and compare the mass distributions obtained from clusters and tracks for the same events.  mass obtained from tracks appears to be more reasonable, but need to check resolutions with  Monte Carlo. mass from EM clusters mass from tracks  yield  Mass (GeV) resolution (GeV) clusters55 +/ 1310.12 +/- 0.170.69 +/- 0.19 tracks68 +/- 119.43 +/- 0.110.62 +/- 0.10 Potential calibration Improvement

27. 27convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Electron Resolution From Monte-Carlo with corrections S = (0.199 ± 0.008)% N = (0.42 ± 0.08) GeV C = (0.0076 ± 0.0014)% MC momentum resolution 3% @ 50 GeV expect: Z mass resolution 2% Z MC 2.2% Data 4.0%  3.1 %

28. 28convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Various Corrections Corrections in D0reco + emcandidate Further calibration corrections Other trials M Z /GeV  Z /GeV  Z /M Z (%) raw ADC81.53.64.4 non linearity86.73.74.3 gain correction86.63.64.2 crate equalization86.53.64.1 geometric correction90.23.64.0 ± 0.1 calibration timing90.23.64.0 physics timing90.23.63.9 calib/phys amplitude90.03.43.8 after tuning weights90.43.33.7 use 2 calweights90.43.33.7 pulser amplitudes90.23.43.8 10  slices 90.43.33.7

29. 29convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Module Boundaries (Phi) ? CC has 32 modules with  =0.2 loss of clusters (?) loss of energy Broader effect on mass Cluster no vs track angle Cluster E vs cluster angle shower profile out in M Z /GeV  Z /GeV  Z /M Z All90.43.33.7 |  |>0.05 91.32.83.1 |  |<0.05 89.63.23.6 smallest distance to crack→ mass Broader effect on mass Origin ? Statistics ?

30. 30convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Dead Material Simulation Modeling of the phi cracks (electric fields and charge collection) Modeling of the dead-material Modeling of preamp charge collection signal Improvement done for solenoid Improving the material map for the SMT cables, infrastructure, cooling…

31. 31convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO EM ID estimators: data vs MC p14.03.00 data and MC EM ID v4.1 2 good electrons, pT > 20 GeV, |  _det| 50 GeV At least 1 track match in data Many distributions are ok pT, isolation, transverse shower shapes in r-phi, EMfractions, HMx41 CC Discrepancies in a few (MC normally narrower) HMx8 components: #2 (~ logE and  z ) and #4 (  z ) Number cells in lower layers CC CC profile/shower shape in  and R HMx6 ? EM CC Cluster widths in r-phi EM CC Cluster widths in z

32. 32convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO CPS Spatial resolution Resolution in  of 1.58 mr (MC 1.5 mr) Resolution in z of 3.2 mm(MC 2.5 mm)  E /E MC study: energy resolution Green shows the improvement using the CPS.

33. 33convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Progress on Photon ID Currently, a photon is an electron with no matched central track, Why is this not good? HMatrix does not work well for electrons, not easy to make it work for photons NEW TOOLS UNDER STUDY: Tracks Matching tracks to CPS-EM objects Isolation Hit counting Use both CFT and SMT PS Matching to EM/TRK Shapes of clusters,    separation? HMx Check if electron HMx works well enough on photons Train it on a sample of 

34. 34convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO TRK-CPS-EM matching From a sample of good Z  ee candidates Require exactly two good EM objects Match them with CPS clusters: 3d floor method: Match CPS and EM (3d floor) in ( ,  ) space  2 method: Use all floors Fit to a straight line Wrong cluster Good cluster d  = 0.00683 d  = 0.00671 3d floor

35. 35convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Priority Tasks Em-energy resolutions (electrons, photons) Data/simulation agreement: shower shapes, cracks Data quality strategy (on-line/off-line) Noise understanding / Fake Jets / T42 integration J.E.S. / hadronic energy resolution Calorimeter compensation studies (E-Flow)  -id

36. 36convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Future dates  CALGO meetings devoted to specific projects: October 21 st : met corrections, DQ October 28 th : em-resolution / simulation …  p14 certification of calorimeter software and objects: November 21 st (JES: Nov. 28 th ) god-parenting by CAT  Next calorimeter workshop: December 2 nd /3 rd or 3 rd /4 th

37. 37convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO Backup slides

38. 38convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO METxy  SET> rms MET-xy MET Run Selection Using METB (no CH, except in good JCCB jets) Pretty stable with time (METxy most sensitive) Good run selection based on rms(MET xy ) 91% good runs (feb-jun 2003) could be lower with tighter cuts could be higher with software corrections MUST be update for p14 for TMBfixed data Only good runs

39. 39convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO TRK-CPS / TRK-CPS-EM matching Require exactly two CPS-EM objects Propagate track to the middle of CPS Calibrate track propagation Check TRK-CPS relative alignment Select the closest track in (z,  ) space In the Z  ee sample: TRK-EM (traditional) matching probability is 84 ± 2% (AA) TRK-CPS-EM matching probability is floor method: 95.8 ± 1.1%  2 method: 92.8 ± 1.3% Fake rate estimation is in progress

40. 40convenors meeting, Sep 4th 2003G.B. for CALGO JES: b-quarks & parton-level b  μν + X b  c  μν + X New semi-leptonic correction for b-jets (p13.08 MC) Added dependence on parent quark (in addition to E mu, pt rel, E bjet Parton-level Correction: light q b-q