1 / 20

Pixel Results from CRAFT09

Pixel Results from CRAFT09. U. Langenegger (PSI), G. Giurgiu (JHU) Pixel General Meeting November 10, 2009. CRAFT09 Analyses. Gain calibration + Validation – R. Rougny (Antwerpen), U. Langenegger (PSI) Pixel hit efficiency - L. Mucibello, R. Rougny, N. van Remortel (Antwerpen)

hewitt
Download Presentation

Pixel Results from CRAFT09

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. Pixel Results from CRAFT09 U. Langenegger (PSI), G. Giurgiu (JHU) Pixel General Meeting November 10, 2009

  2. CRAFT09 Analyses • Gain calibration + Validation – R. Rougny (Antwerpen), U. Langenegger (PSI) • Pixel hit efficiency - L. Mucibello, R. Rougny, N. van Remortel (Antwerpen) • Pixel hit resolution – K. Ulmer (Colorado) • BPIX Lorentz angle – M. Ivova, V. Chiochia (Zurich) • FPIX Lorentz angle – A. Kumar, A. Godshalk, A. Kharchilava (Buffalo) • Data/MC comparison – A. Jaeger, V. Chiochia (Zurich), M.Swartz (JHU) • All analyses done with most recent CRAFT09 reprocessing • /Cosmics/CRAFT09-TrackingPointing-CRAFT09_R_V4_CosmicsSeq_v1/RAW-RECO

  3. Gain Calibration R. Rougny (Antwerpen), U. Langenegger (PSI) • Pixel thresholds minimized before CRAFT09 • → procedure led to significant fraction of negative BPIX pedestals • After CRAFT09, detector settings changed to fix negative pedestals (Ben Kreis, D. Kotlinski) • → new gain calibration taken (run 117680) • → fraction of negative pedestals indeed negligible in new calibration: FPIX BPIX

  4. Gain Calibration ValidationU. Langenegger (PSI), R.Rougny (Antwerpen) • Analyze post-CRAFT09 data to validate new gain calibration CRAFT09 data Runs 119226 119094 119090 119088 119079 119022 119017 118969 118878 118762 118621 - Fraction of post-CRAFT09 data - No problems seen

  5. Gain Calibration ValidationU. Langenegger (PSI) In http://www.phys.ethz.ch/~ursl/cms/091110/ you can find a higher statistics version of the CRAFT09-II gain calibration validation. This is still without the SP skim. CRAFT09-II ---------- cluster charge: http://www.phys.ethz.ch/~ursl/cms/091110/craft09-II-clusterCharge.ps BPIX Landau+Gauss: http://www.phys.ethz.ch/~ursl/cms/091110/craft09-II-bpix.ps FPIX Landau+Gauss: http://www.phys.ethz.ch/~ursl/cms/091110/craft09-II-fpix.ps reprocessed CRAFT09 SP skim --------------------------- cluster charge: http://www.phys.ethz.ch/~ursl/cms/091110/reprocessed-sp-data-clusterCharge.ps BPIX Landau+Gauss: http://www.phys.ethz.ch/~ursl/cms/091110/reprocessed-sp-data-bpix.ps FPIX Landau+Gauss: http://www.phys.ethz.ch/~ursl/cms/091110/reprocessed-sp-data-fpix.ps The MPV have come down a bit in both BPIX and FPIX, the effect of the slightly lowered gains, visible in the overlayed offline payload comparison for the new and previous gain calibration runs http://www.phys.ethz.ch/~ursl/cms/091110/gains-108062-117680.png The relative width has decreased (increased) slightly for the BPIX (FPIX). The gain calibration looks good

  6. Data / MC ComparisonA. Jaeger, V. Chiochia (Zurich)

  7. Data / MC Comparison – Cluster Charge A. Jaeger, V. Chiochia (Zurich) • Fair agreement between data and MC • Disagreement at low charge could be explained by lower thresholds in MC than in data • Andreas will produce MC with higher thresholds which match data barrel barrel

  8. Data / MC Comparison – Pixel Charrge A. Jaeger, V. Chiochia (Zurich) barrel barrel

  9. Data / MC Comparison – Pixel Hit Probability A. Jaeger, V. Chiochia (Zurich) • Pixel hit probability calculated as chi2 probability of the matching between the observed • cluster shape and the expected template • Fair qualitative agreement between data and MC • → important test since we plan to use pixel probability to improve tracking (remove bad • hits, split merged clusters…) barrel • Work in progress • re-digitize MC with higher thresholds to match MC • optimize phase space to emulate collisions better (~4000 electrons)

  10. Pixel Hit EfficiencyL. Mucibello, R. Rougny, N. van Remortel (Antwerpen)

  11. Pixel Hit EfficiencyL. Mucibello, R. Rougny, N. van Remortel (Antwerpen) Eff = Nvalid / (Nvalid + Nmissing) Pixel sensor efficiency ~ 98.3 – 98.5% White boxes = known bad modules Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 low statistics - Will investigate pixel efficiency with strip seeded tracks to avoid biases in efficiency

  12. Pixel Hit ResolutionK. Ulmer (Colorado) • Pixel hit resolution measured in CRAFT09 using the “double difference” method • - Compare measured resolution with predicted errors from template based cluster parameter • estimator (CPETemplate) - Resolution in microns : reprocessed original processing measured predicted measured predicted X 18 ± 1 15 ± 1 19 ± 3 15 ± 1 Y 26 ± 1 23 ± 1 32 ± 2 25 ± 2 • Measured resolution about 10-20% worse than predicted by CPE • Will repeat measurements with much better statistics with collisions • Will correct CPE predicted errors to match observed resolution

  13. E BPIX Lorentz Angle – Cluster Size MethodM. Ivova, V. Chiochia (Zurich) - Good agreement LA measured in latest and first processing as well as with the PIXELAV Simulation cot(a)min = -0.408 +/- 0.002 – latest CRAFT09 reprocessing cot(a)min = -0.405 +/- 0.003 – first CRAFT09 processing cot(a)min = -0.397 +/- 0.003 – PIXELAV simulation (M. Swartz) B field OFF B field ON LA consistent with zero within 2s qLorentz ≈ 22°

  14. FPIX Lorentz Angle – Cluster Size Method A. Kumar, A. Godshalk, A. Kharchilava (Buffalo) - Good agreement LA measured in latest and first processing as well as with the PIXELAV Simulation cot(a)min = -0.084 +/- 0.008 – first CRAFT09 reprocessing cot(a)min = -0.080 +/- 0.005 – latest CRAFT09 processing cot(a)min = -0.081 +/- 0.003 – PIXELAV simulation (M. Swartz) B field OFF B field ON LA consistent with zero qLorentz ≈ 5°

  15. Avg. Drift (mm) Depth (mm) FPIX Lorentz Angle – Grazing Angle Method A. Kumar, A. Godshalk, A. Kharchilava (Buffalo) • Buffalo group also measured FPIX LA using grazing angle method in CRAFT08 and got • good agreement with cluster size method • → nice proof of principle • 3.75° ± 0.41° - grazing angle • 3.95° ± 0.39° - cluster size • This is important since with collisions • cluster size method is not adequate • With collisions grazing angle method • will be used for BPIX • For FPIX neither grazing angle nor • cluster size are optimal with collision tracks • → might have to rely on cosmics • only

  16. Conclusion • Gain calibration in place and validated with post CRAFT09 data • Lorentz angles measured and in agreement with previous processing • and with PIXELAV simulation • Pixel sensor efficiency ~98.5% • - Next step: use strip seeded tracks to avoid biases • Reasonable data/MC agreement when collision like cosmic tracks • selected but some cosmic specific effects not simulated • Pixel hit resolution within 10-20% from expectation • Will repeat with collisions and adjust predicted errors if needed

  17. Backup Slides

  18. Gain Calibration ValidationU. Langenegger (PSI), R.Rougny (Antverpen)

  19. Gain Calibration ValidationU. Langenegger (PSI), R.Rougny (Antverpen) CRAFT09 data - Fraction of post-CRAFT09 data - No problems seen

More Related