LAr Response to pions: LAr Response to pions: Data vs MC Data vs MC

S.Paganis (Wisconsin)S.Paganis (Wisconsin)with with

Isabelle Winterger ,Martin AleksaIsabelle Winterger ,Martin Aleksa

LAr Week CTB Meeting, LAr Week CTB Meeting, CERN, 10-May-2005CERN, 10-May-2005

10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 2

Analysis (10.0.2 data+MC) Analysis (10.0.2 data+MC)

Run: 2100482 20GeV pionsRun: 2100482 20GeV pions Fully combined, have shown previously problems in

LAr rec. energy Parabola Energy reconstructionParabola Energy reconstruction

15ADC “cubicADCcut” in LArRawChannelSimpleBuilder.cxx

A2MEV numbers from EMTB EMTB 3x3 clusteringEMTB 3x3 clustering No cluster corrections, No Long. weigthsNo cluster corrections, No Long. weigths No shower cuts yet.No shower cuts yet. MC: 20k eventsMC: 20k events

Charge collection corrections Tried to get “correct” beam profile … ADC2MEV in Digitization step (parabola is the default)

10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 3

Program Flow (Program Flow (release 10.0.2release 10.0.2):):

Analysis C++ Package

MC: ADC2MEV happens here

Thanks to:Manuel Galas

Final Physics Plots

jobOptions.G4Ctb_Dig.py

Reconstruction

ESD and CBNT

Data: ADC2MEV here

CTB04 Data jobOptions.G4Ctb_Sim.py

TBAnalysis on ESD

miniCBNT

+G4Apps

10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 4

ADC -> MeV for MC and Data (10.0.2)ADC -> MeV for MC and Data (10.0.2)

ADCADC2MEVE

Noise(ADC)SFADC2MEV

EADC

mcrec

mcmc

Geant

)SF/1(uA2MEVDAC2uAADC2DACADC2MEV

PEDESTALADCpeakADC2MEVE

datavisi

rec

Monte Carlo: LArdigitMaker.cxx

Data: LArRawChannelSimpleBuilder.cxx

Differences at present:

1. Difference in the Sampling Fractions2. Different noise normalization due to ADC2MeV (small)

10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 5

Data: 3x3 LAr vs Total tile Data: 3x3 LAr vs Total tile EnergyEnergy

Electrons

Pion LAr MIPs

10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 6

Beam ProfilesBeam Profiles

Can do better

Data

MC

10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 7

Cleaning cutsCleaning cuts

For reconstructed energy comparisons:For reconstructed energy comparisons: E(MC) = Erec * SFmc/SFdata

For visible energy comparisons:For visible energy comparisons: E(MC) = Erec * SFmc E(data) = Erec * SFdata

muTag to remove muonsmuTag to remove muons Etile+ELAr MIP cuts to remove muonsEtile+ELAr MIP cuts to remove muons ELAr>15GeV, to remove electrons ELAr>15GeV, to remove electrons

(crude)(crude) Don’t want to use shower shape cuts yet (under

study) Possible Long electron tail

10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 8

Possible biases:Possible biases:

Tile MC has no noise.Tile MC has no noise. For data a LAr drift time assumption is For data a LAr drift time assumption is

made to get the SFmade to get the SF LAr MC has noise but it does not LAr MC has noise but it does not

perfectly represent the dataperfectly represent the data Cuts on LAr energy cause a bias when Cuts on LAr energy cause a bias when

scale and shape are differentscale and shape are different Parabolic fit at low energies?Parabolic fit at low energies? ......

10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 9

MuTag: removes a portion of MuTag: removes a portion of muonsmuons

10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 10

Zoom in the “MIP” region (after Zoom in the “MIP” region (after cuts)cuts)

MC is broader, slow rising: due to more noise or the parabola or …?

OLD Plot: April 2005: we care because MIP region is upstream material insensitive!

10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 11

Noise: ADC[2] eta=10, Noise: ADC[2] eta=10, phi=8phi=8

DATA MC

10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 12

Noise: ADCpeakNoise: ADCpeakDATA MC

10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 13

Noise: Reduce the MC noise to Noise: Reduce the MC noise to 0.60.6

DATA MC

Great match! However …

10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 14

Noise: ADCpeak still wider!Noise: ADCpeak still wider!DATA MC

10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 15

Zoom in the “MIP” region (after Zoom in the “MIP” region (after cuts)cuts)

Improved agreement and an indicationof the MC EM scale being a few % too low. However, in the data 5ns ~ 1%

New Plot: after reducing accordion noise in MC. we care because MIP region is upstream material insensitive!

10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 16

LAr Energy after simple cutsLAr Energy after simple cuts

Data

MC

Some disagreement between data and MC after only SF adjustment. It seems that there is additional upstream material, not present in the simulation.

10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 17

Visible Energy per LAr Visible Energy per LAr SamplingSampling

More energy in MC

Less energy in MC

Normalization away from the noise region

10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 18

Total visible Energy (LAr)Total visible Energy (LAr)

Normalization away from the noise region

10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 19

SummarySummary

Reasonable but not perfect agreement Reasonable but not perfect agreement between Data and MC:between Data and MC:

MIP region indicates lower EM MC response (few %) Strips vs Middle response indicates some missing

material in the MC description (must be checked).

Discrepancy between DATA and MC for Discrepancy between DATA and MC for very small depositions was resolved: very small depositions was resolved:

due to inconsistent noise in MC and due to the ADCpeak parabola calculation (move to

OFCs)

Tile colleagues confirmed MC Tile colleagues confirmed MC improvement. Will try to communicate improvement. Will try to communicate the present progress. Next round, use the present progress. Next round, use OFCsOFCs

10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 20

Supporting ViewgraphsSupporting Viewgraphs

10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 21

ADC2MEV (Data vs MC)ADC2MEV (Data vs MC)

ADC2DACADC2DAC DAC2VolDAC2Voltt

Volts2Volts2AA A2MeVA2MeV

How:How: RampsRamps 38.147 38.147 uA/VoltuA/Volt

Injection Injection ResistorResistor

(t(tdriftdrift*W)/e *W)/e 1/SF1/SF

PS PS (EMB1)(EMB1)

38.147/R=0.114 nA38.147/R=0.114 nA 12501250

S1 S1 (EMB1) (EMB1)

12.62 nA12.62 nA 370.370370.37033

S2 S2 (EMB1)(EMB1)

37.58 nA37.58 nA 370.370370.37033

S3 S3 (EMB1)(EMB1)

37.58 nA37.58 nA 370.370370.37033

PEDESTALADCpeakADC2MEV recE

10-May-2005 LAr response to pions 22

How to get the SF for Data (an How to get the SF for Data (an example)example)

AccordionA MeV/ 947.328

PresamplerA MeV/ 47.1176

8.0||

AccordionA MeV/ 37.370

PresamplerA MeV/ 1250

8.0||

:tionReconstruc EMTBeam

CeVns

CeVns

19

19

106.1/6.23470AMeVper

:Accordion

106.1/6.23420AMeVper

:Presampler

SF(Presampler <0.8)=t*W/e/1250 = 0.0496SF(Accordion <0.8)=t*W/e/370.37 = 0.18718

uA2MEV/uA2MEVSF)SF/1(uA2MEVuA2MEV visivisi