1 / 10

CSCTF: Commissioning 2011

CSCTF: Commissioning 2011. By Anna Kropivnitskaya. ● Muon ID efficiency fluctuation after September TS ● News for Run Coordination Meeting Nov. 2-4. CSCTF working meeting, 3 October 2011. Muon ID efficiency fluctuation after Sept. TS.

berke
Download Presentation

CSCTF: Commissioning 2011

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. CSCTF: Commissioning 2011 By Anna Kropivnitskaya ●Muon ID efficiency fluctuation after September TS ● News for Run Coordination Meeting Nov. 2-4 CSCTF working meeting, 3 October 2011

  2. Muon ID efficiency fluctuation after Sept. TS • It was reported at Muon POG meeting by Cristina and Daniele: • https://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=128982 • that Muon ID efficiency fluctuated during runs • - for some runs 99%, for another 92% or even 85%! • - inefficiency comes only from CSC region, DT is fine • - they didn’t observe any correlations in time between efficiency drop • - Daniele provide table of every run after Sept. TS and efficiency to it • (see above reference)

  3. Muon ID efficiency fluctuation after Sept. TS • Using information of Daniele’s table I study good and bad efficient runs • (for details see next slide) and the following conclusions could be done: • If L1 Physics rate > 70 kHz we become less efficient for Muon ID • We are not depend on luminosity or time. • - We have 3 most inefficient runs : • eff < 0.92, err < 0.02 (eff, L1AsPhysicsRate) • 175874 (0.85, 88 kHz), 175975 (0.92, 83 kHz), 176848(0.90, 84 kHz), • Possible further investigation: • Check with T&P that L1 efficiency is fine for problematic runs • If eff. is fine than problem could come form HLT, tracker • or reconstruction issues

  4. Muon ID efficiency fluctuation after Sept. TS eff > 0.98, err < 0.01 (int. lumi E33, max L1AsPhysicsRate): fill 2085: 175860 (0.89, 50 kHz), 175863 (0.83,47 kHz), 175866(0.76, 41 kHz), fill 2086: 175877 (1.61, 65 kHz), 175881 (1.54, 60 kHz), 175886 (1.42, 54 kHz), 175887 (1.27, 47 kHz), 175888 (1.21, 45 kHz), fill 2101: 176169 (2.51, 68 kHz), fill 2103: 176202 (2.35, 62 kHz), 176206 (2.09, 53 kHz), 176207 (2.01, 59 kHz), fill 2105: 176308 (2.45, 62 kHz), fill 2129: 176805 (1.80, 69 kHz), 176807 (1.74, 66 kHz), fill 2135: 176860 (1.87, 71 kHz), 176868 (59 kHz), eff < 0.92, err < 0.02 (eff, L1AsPhysicsRate) 175874 (0.85, 88 kHz), 175975 (0.92, 83 kHz), 176848(0.90, 84 kHz), 0.92 < eff < 0.95, err 175976 (75 kHz), 175990 (80 kHz), 176163 (79 kHz), 176547 (85 kHz), 176548 (86 kHz), 176799 (85 kHz), 176841 (79 kHz, huge amount resync), 176844 (87 kHz), 176850 (82 kHz), 176886 (85 kHz), 176933 (87 kHz),

  5. Muon ID efficiency fluctuation after Sept. TS 175874 (0.85. 88 kHz): fill 2086 (08.09.2011): (eff, int. lumi E33, rate) 175872 (0.96, 1.92, 72kHz), 175873(0.93,1.92, 77 kHz), 175874(0.85, 1.87, 88 kHz), 175875(?, 1.75, 105 kHz), 175877-175888 (>0.98): 175877 (1.61, 65 kHz), 175881 (1.54, 60 kHz), 175886 (54 kHz), 175887 (47 kHz), 175888 (45kHz) 175874 very similar to 175877 in online CSCTF DQM, halo a little bit different and Tr Mode %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 175975 (0.92, 83 kHz) fill 2092 (09.09.2011): (eff, int. lumi E33, rate) 175971(0.96, 2.83, 78 kHz), 175973(?, 2.79, 64 kHz), 175974(?, 2.46, 51 kHz), 175975(0.92, 2.31, 83kHz), 175976(0.95,1.98, 75 kHz) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 176848 (0.90, 84 kHz): fill 2135 (21.09.2011): (eff, int. lumi E33, rate) 176841 (0.93, 2.15, 79 kHz, huge amount resync), 176842(?, 2.33, 50 kHz) , 176844(0.94, 2.28, 87 kHz), 176848 (0.90, 2.15, 84 kHz), 176850 (0.94, 2.10, 81 kHz), 176860 (0.98, 1.87, 71 kHz), 176868 (0.99, 1.58, 59 kHz),

  6. News for Run Coordination Meeting Nov. 2-4 - Pt assignment will be review to improve CSCTF resolution and suppress rate (here I need slides from Bobby) - MPC possible upgrade or at list study of MPC inefficiency (here I need slides from Justin) - Halo rate as a monitoring tool of back ground (beam gas…) (…) - rate study of the CSCTF with tight and loose (now at Point 5) quality definition (slide from me: tools are ready, almost done)

  7. Back up

  8. CSCTF DQM plans of improvements • Add eta distribution of CSCTF with only one HLT path or at HLT level DQM even better? • Make correct size at eta scale at DQM plots • Make Logy for number of tracks in event to monitor pile up effect

  9. CSC geometry

  10. CSCTF Quality definition Quality definition till May, 10 2011:  Overlap DT-CSC region:  mode 11, 12, 14 -> Quality 3  for |eta| <1.2 any other modes -> Quality 1  CSC region |eta| > 1.2:  mode 2, 3, 4 -> Quality 3  mode 6, 7, 13 -> Quality 2  mode 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 15 -> Quality 1Quality definition after May, 10 2011:   Overlap DT-CSC stay the same without changes   CSC region |eta|> 1.2 changes:   mode 5 -> Quality 3   for |eta|: 1.6-1.8 mode 8, 9, 10 -> Quality 2

More Related