1 / 16

Status of MiniCal Analysis

Status of MiniCal Analysis. E. Garutti (for DESY-HCAL group). NEW run with Tile-HCAL prototype with MA-PM single tile read-out:  improve systematic uncertainty  improve comparison to SiPM preliminary data/MC comparison. New MA-PM Studies. e +. Main differences from October run:

bellona-terry
Download Presentation

Status of MiniCal Analysis

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. Status of MiniCal Analysis E. Garutti (for DESY-HCAL group) • NEW run with Tile-HCAL prototype with MA-PM single tile read-out: •  improve systematic uncertainty •  improve comparison to SiPM • preliminary data/MC comparison Erika Garutti

  2. New MA-PM Studies e+ • Main differences from October run: • Single tile readout for core of MiniCal •  direct comparison to SiPM • open beam collimator to get higher second particle rate •  1-12 GeV beam energy • fast MIP calibration with beam • less sensitivity to temperature & voltage fluctuations cell RO single tile RO Erika Garutti

  3. MIP Calibration 3 GeV on single tile, w/o absorber in front • Pedestal determination: • 1 ADC channel shift = 1% uncertainty in s/E • MIP = MPV – pedestal • Gauss for peak position + Landau for tail: • variation of function boundaries = • 2% uncertainty in s/E Gauss Landau  2% fit systematic MIP Erika Garutti

  4. MC simulation of MIP • implemented PM description in MC • single tile MC calibration needed: • - # ph.e /MIP • - width of 1st ph.e • good description of MIP shape after calibration •  More details in Marius talk Erika Garutti from M. Groll

  5. Reproducibility of Calibration • calibrations performed • before and after energy • resolution scan • observed overall 2% shift  2% calibration reproducibility Erika Garutti

  6. Slow Control Monitor • Daily monitor of MIP calibration versus: • temperature fluctuations • High Voltage stability • More details in Hendrik talk • related to temperature variation  2% calibration reproducibility Erika Garutti

  7. Tile Calibration Scan 9 point scan of the tile centre according to:  2% tile homogeneity Erika Garutti

  8. Two Particle Events ~8% of events have 2 particles hitting the MiniCal 2 particles from 2 GeV beam give the second peak @ 4 GeV  Max energy = 12GeV 2 GeV 4 GeV Erika Garutti

  9. MC Simulation of Two-particle Events 13 layers MiniCal 26 layers MiniCal Res. = 27.6/438.3 = 6.30% Res. = 27.8/437.7 = 6.35% Erika Garutti from A. Raspereza

  10. Linearity of PM Response 1.5% PM non-linearity Erika Garutti

  11. Systematic Uncertainty s/E (%) Erika Garutti

  12. Fit to Energy Resolution Determination of s/E from fit using with or w/o noise term • Little constrain from high energy data on constant term • (compare black/red curves) • SiPM response curve applied • SiPM sys. fixed to 5% • SiPM data are 7% above PM s/E (%) • SiPM • PM SIPM results from MEPHI group analysis Erika Garutti

  13. Energy Resolution MC tuned to PM response • SiPM • PM • MC no sensitivity to c term Erika Garutti

  14. Result Comparison Preliminary: Fixing a = 19.0 (MC value) SiPM: b = 5.1 ± 0.5 PM : b = 3.1 ± 0.5 MC : b = 4.6 ± 0.2  Still to be discussed within the group to understand source of constant term s/E (%) • SiPM • PM • MC Erika Garutti

  15. N MIP comparison remaining difference in total number of MIP to be understood Erika Garutti

  16. Outlook -many progresses made in: • control of data quality systematic uncertainty ( < 4% for PM) detectors comparison simulation • still to be understood: • difference in N MIPs on SiPM/PM • constant term of SiPM/PM • MC description of energy resolution • goal: • combined publication of SiPM/PM data • first draft in April Erika Garutti

More Related