1 / 28

Single Particle Performance

Single Particle Performance. Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2 nd ILD Workshop @ Cambridge 12-Sep-2008. Topics. Jupiter+Satellites by AM & K.Yoshida. Mokka+MarlinReco by S. Aplin. Jupiter + Satellites/Marlin by AM & T.Takahashi. Mokka+Marlin /Pandora by M.Thomson.

airlia
Download Presentation

Single Particle Performance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Single Particle Performance Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD Workshop @ Cambridge 12-Sep-2008

  2. Topics Jupiter+Satellites by AM & K.Yoshida Mokka+MarlinReco by S. Aplin Jupiter + Satellites/Marlin by AM & T.Takahashi Mokka+Marlin/Pandora by M.Thomson Momentum Resolution by muon Impact Parameter Resolution by muon Energy resolution by gamma Energy resolution by kaon_0L 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

  3. Tracking parameters of Jupiter/Mokka TPC point resolution 3 Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

  4. Vertex Detector 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

  5. Intermediate(Silicon) Tracker- Barrel 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

  6. Momentum Resolution

  7. Pt resolution Single muon, produced at cosq=0. by Jupiter+Satellites: TPC+IT+VTX fitting LDC : ~5% worse at high Pt  Shorter Lever arm GLD/GLD’: ~10%worse at low Pt  Lower B 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

  8. Pt resolution– Mokka/Pandora Single muon, produced at cosq=0. LDC01 : worse at high Pt LDC-GLD : worse at low Pt  Similar trends as Jupiter/Satellites 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

  9. GLDPrim - LDCPrim LDCPrim(Mokka+Pandora) is better than GLDPrim(Jupiter+Sattelites) by 15~30%. Possible source: srf(IT) 3mm(LDCPrim)  10mm(GLDPrim) Silicon External Tracker in Mokka 3x10-5 Sub-detector technology is more important than geometry 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

  10. D(dPt/Pt) vsCosq Single Muon 1GeV 100GeV 10GeV lowP j4ldc better highP gld/gldprim better 5 ~ 10% differences 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

  11. dPt/Pt vsCosqGLDPrim - LDCPrim Difference smaller in the forward region 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

  12. Impact Parameter Resolution

  13. Impact Parameter Resolution(P dep.) Jupiter + Sattelites by K.Yoshida J4LDC is better by 5~10%, especially at low P. 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

  14. Impact Parameter Resolution(P dep.) Mokka + Pandora by S.Aplin Difference among models by Jupiter/Satellites and Mokka/MarlinReco are similar LDC better by 5~10% at lowP. 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

  15. GLDPrimvsLDCPrim (srf(IP)) • GLDPrimis better than LDCPrim ; • 3 double layers vs 5 layers ? Fast sim. study by M.Berggren 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

  16. Impact Parameter Resolution(q dep.) p=1GeV Differences among gld/gldprim/j4ldc are ~15% at 1 GeV and smaller at H.E. 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

  17. GLDPrimvsLDCPrim (srf(IP)) At p=100 GeV, |cosq|>0.0 less difference between GLDPrim and LDCPrim ?? 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

  18. Calorimeter Energy Resolution

  19. Jupiter/Mokka Calorimeter Parameters ECAL(Jupiter): W(3mm) + Scinti.(2mm) + Gap(1mm), 12-sided no-gap (Mokka):W(2.1mm/4.2mm)+Si(0.32mm), Gap(0.5mm), 8-sided, with-gap HCAL(Jupiter): Fe(20mm)+Scinti.(5mm)+Gap(1mm), 12-sided, no-gap (Mokka): Fe(20mm)+Scinti.(5mm)+Gap(1.5mm), 8(in)/8(out)-sided, no-gap 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

  20. gamma Energy resolution Same performance in all models. GLDPrim and LDCPrim same. 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

  21. Calorimeter Energy Resolutionfor kaon_0L

  22. Energy Resolution of kaon_0L |cosq| < 0.5 dE/E Single kaon_0L Casued by BertinicascadeQGSP switch of LCPhysicsList Jupiter + Sattelites(Cheated PFA) 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

  23. kaon_0L Energy Resolution Not conclusive result. - 12~13 GeV - LE/HE behaviour Clustering Algorithm ? 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

  24. Point-by-point comparison Single kaon_0L Same below ~ 10 GeV, difference at high energy  shower leakage 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

  25. Pulse height distribution: All layers vs up to 31 layers (GLD)

  26. HCAL thickness Resolution vs used layers Resolution relative to all layers gld 46layes k0L, using gldapr08_14m data. gldprim 42 layers j4ldc 37 layers

  27. Summary • Momentum Resolution of single muon • Mokka+MarlinReco and Jupiter+Satellites show similar trend. • 4T model is about 10% better than 3.5T/3T model below ~ 10 GeV. • 3T(3.5T) models is 5~105% better than 4T model above 10~ 50 GeV. • Sub-detector technologies are more important than geometry • LDCPrim is better than GLDPrim by 15 ~ 30% • w./w.o SET, srf of IT, … matters • Impact parameter Resolution • Mokka+MarlinReco and Jupiter+Satellites show similar trend. • At 1GeV (100GeV), 4T model is ~15%(~5%) better than 3T model, 3.5 is in between • GLDPrim is better than J4LDC at cosq=0. • Source of difference : 3 double layers better than 5 layers ? 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

  28. Summary (cont.) • Calorimeter by single particle. • Energy resolution of single g: • Difference among gldapr08, gldprim_v04, and j4ldc_v04, LDCPrim are negligible • Energy resolution of k0L; • Resolution can not be determined by fit due to LCPhysicsList feature • By point-by-point comparison, • differences among gld/gld’/j4ldc below ~20 GeV is 5% • at 100 GeV, it is ~20% and can be explained by different interaction lengthGLD(6.79l)  J4LDC(5.67l) 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

More Related