1 / 14

Muon Performance in the 25 ns runs

Muon Performance in the 25 ns runs. Niels van Eldik, Peter Kluit MATF/MCP meeting 6 September 2013. Introduction. Look at the difference in Muon Performance for the 25 ns run and compare this to a 50 ns run. Data sets:

armand-fowler
Download Presentation

Muon Performance in the 25 ns runs

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. Muon Performance in the 25 ns runs Niels van Eldik, Peter Kluit MATF/MCP meeting 6 September 2013

  2. Introduction Look at the difference in Muon Performance for the 25 ns run and compare this to a 50 ns run. Data sets: 25 ns data12_8TeV.00216432.physics_Muons.recon.DESD_ZMUMU.f507_m1246_f507 50 ns data12_8TeV.00200967.physics_Muons.recon.DESD_ZMUMU.r4056* Use the Z skim because the trigger conditions have changed; can compare Zs to Zs under different machine conditions Here a run with similar machine conditions is used (as proposed by Philipp Fleischmann)

  3. Z Tag and Probe efficiencies: 25 ns

  4. Z Tag and Probe efficiencies: 50 ns Very very similar at few per mille level within stats

  5. Z Tag and Probe Trigger efficiencies: 25 ns Quite similar but there were changes to trigger

  6. Z Tag and Probe Trigger efficiencies: 50 ns

  7. Muons from Zs isolation Mean Et cone 0.835 1.03 GeV There is slightly more energy Et collected around muon in the 25 nsec run. Ratio measured is 1.23. We need a calorimeter expert to tell us whether this is expected…

  8. Vertices in the two runs Difference in number vertices: about a factor of 2 due to the different bunch spacing (25 vs 50 ns). Inst Luminosity is pretty similar in these two runs (50ns/50ns = 0.937).

  9. MDT hits in the two runs Factor 3.68 more MDT hits in 50 ns Here one expects similar number of MDT hits due to the long MDT integration window. The ratio 50ns/25ns is 1.24. This is confirmed.

  10. RPC/CSC hits in the two runs RPC Ratio 50/25≈ 1.11 Expected ≈1 Time window is large and unchanged so and equals 64 counts… CSC (eta) Ratio 50/25 ≈ 1.45 Expected ≈1 Here also window is relatively large. Maybe not all is integrated…

  11. TGC hits in the two runs TGC Ratio ≈ 1.15 Expected 0.5 because time window is short: only this BC… TGC Previous and Next BC

  12. Muon distribution for the ZpT > 20 GeV

  13. Muon distribution for the Z“third muon” pT < 20 GeV Note that there are more low pT muons in the 50 ns run: from pile up Plots normalized to number of Zs Factor ≈ 2 more low pT events in 50 nsec run Here one expects a factor 2 from 50/25 ns

  14. Conclusions Look at the difference in Muon Performance for the 25 ns run and compare this to a 50 ns run. Measurements for efficiencies comparing the two runs show a very similar muon identification efficiency. A reduction in the pile up background (in the 25 ns run) at low pT of a factor 2 is measured for CB and Tagged muons. This is expected. By selecting a run with similar condition also the backgrounds for the different detectors could be compared. All backgrounds in the MDT, RPC, CSC and TGC detectors are similar to or smaller than the 50 ns backgrounds. The CSC background is reduced a bit. It is a bit puzzling why the TGC bkg rate is not reduced in the 25 ns run.

More Related