1 / 18

Absolute Calibration of Electromagnetic Calorimeter at LHC with Physics Processes

Absolute Calibration of Electromagnetic Calorimeter at LHC with Physics Processes. Tao Hu, Lei Xia, Ren-yuan Zhu California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA 91125, USA. Introduction. Absolute calibration of electromagnetic calorimeter is provided by physics processes with:

felice
Download Presentation

Absolute Calibration of Electromagnetic Calorimeter at LHC with Physics Processes

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. Absolute Calibration of Electromagnetic Calorimeter at LHC with Physics Processes Tao Hu, Lei Xia, Ren-yuan Zhu California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA 91125, USA Calor 2002March 25 – 29, Pasadena, USA

  2. Introduction • Absolute calibration of electromagnetic calorimeter is provided by physics processes with: • Clean final states with electrons (positrons) and/or photons • Clear physical constrains • Example: • Final state with 2 energetic electrons, constrains on Z mass and width • Using an algorithm of fitting the Z mass and line shape Calor 2002March 25 – 29, Pasadena, USA

  3. Introduction: as an example • The algorithm converges after several iterations • The precision of this calibration is limited by statistics. • In the given plot, shows a statistics of 100 electrons per crystal. Calibration precision is better than 0.4% • To achieve better than 1%, a statistics of 25 electrons per crystal is needed Calor 2002March 25 – 29, Pasadena, USA

  4. Introduction: useful processes at LHC • Z production: • Ideal final state and physics constrains for calibration, however has limited cross section • W production: • Need E/P matching, relies on the performance of the tracker • J/ψ and Υ(1s) production: • Advantage: both processes have large cross sections and clear physics constrains • Disadvantage: require a very low PT cut at level-1 trigger Calor 2002March 25 – 29, Pasadena, USA

  5. Production Cross Sections: Z • CDF gave the cross section of inclusive Z production, followed by decay to muon pair • PYTHIA6.136: corresponding cross section at 1.8TeV • Compare the above two, we get k factor to Z production cross section is 1.35. We use it to estimate the cross section at LHC (14TeV) • PYTHIA: • Apply k factor: Calor 2002March 25 – 29, Pasadena, USA

  6. Production Cross Sections: Z Calor 2002March 25 – 29, Pasadena, USA

  7. Production Cross Sections: W • CDF gave the cross section of inclusive W production, followed by decay to an electron and a neutrino • PYTHIA6.136: corresponding cross section at 1.8TeV • Compare the above two, we get k factor to W production cross section is 1.33. We use it to estimate the cross section at LHC (14TeV) • PYTHIA: • Apply k factor: Calor 2002March 25 – 29, Pasadena, USA

  8. Production Cross Sections: W Calor 2002March 25 – 29, Pasadena, USA

  9. Production Cross Sections: J/ψ • CDF gave the cross section of inclusive J/ψ production, followed by decay to muon pair • PYTHIA6.136: corresponding cross section at 1.8TeV • Compare the above two, we get k factor to J/ψ production cross section is 4.62. We use it to estimate the cross section at LHC (14TeV) • PYTHIA: • Apply k factor: Calor 2002March 25 – 29, Pasadena, USA

  10. Production Cross Sections: J/ψ Calor 2002March 25 – 29, Pasadena, USA

  11. Production Cross Sections: Υ • CDF gave the cross section of inclusive Υ production, followed by decay to muon pair • PYTHIA6.136: corresponding cross section at 1.8TeV • Compare the above two, we get k factor to Υ production cross section is 2.41. We use it to estimate the cross section at LHC (14TeV) • PYTHIA: • Apply k factor: Calor 2002March 25 – 29, Pasadena, USA

  12. Production Cross Sections: Υ Calor 2002March 25 – 29, Pasadena, USA

  13. Trigger Efficiency & Event Rate • The key issue of using J/ψ or Υ channels is the level-1 trigger efficiency • Using CMS ECAL as an example, we can estimate the trigger efficiency and event rate • The level-1 trigger rate was calculated by using signal events generated by using CMSIM 121 for CMS detector response • ORCA_4_4_0_optimized was used to generate level-1 ntuples for each physics process • The level-1 trigger ntuples of QCD background for total trigger rate calculation was provided by Dr. P. Chumney and S. Dasu • We assume that the maximum acceptable total trigger rate is about 7.5 kHz Calor 2002March 25 – 29, Pasadena, USA

  14. Trigger Efficiency & Event Rate Trigger efficiency and event rate for Z Trigger efficiency and event rate for W Calor 2002March 25 – 29, Pasadena, USA

  15. Trigger Efficiency & Event Rate Trigger efficiency and event rate for J/Ψ Calor 2002March 25 – 29, Pasadena, USA

  16. Trigger Efficiency & Event Rate Trigger efficiency and event rate for Y Calor 2002March 25 – 29, Pasadena, USA

  17. Time needed for calibration • Time needed to reach a sub percent precision Calor 2002March 25 – 29, Pasadena, USA

  18. Summary • Four physics processes has been studied for calibration of electromagnetic calorimeter at LHC • By using CDF data corrections factors, cross section of these processes were determined • As an example, level-1 trigger efficiency and event rate has been studied using CMS detector simulation • By using channel, about 1(0.5) year of data taking is needed at • A combination of all physics processes is needed at the beginning… Calor 2002March 25 – 29, Pasadena, USA

More Related