1 / 24

CERN Sept 2010 beam test: Sensor response study

CERN Sept 2010 beam test: Sensor response study. Chris Walmsley and Sam Leveridge (presented by Paul Dauncey). CERN 2010 beam test data. Taken with EUDET telescope Two arms, each of three layers of MIMOSA-26 silicon pixel sensors

maxima
Download Presentation

CERN Sept 2010 beam test: Sensor response study

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. CERN Sept 2010 beam test: Sensor response study Chris Walmsley and Sam Leveridge (presented by Paul Dauncey) Paul Dauncey

  2. CERN 2010 beam test data • Taken with EUDET telescope • Two arms, each of three layers of MIMOSA-26 silicon pixel sensors • Ran with and without tungsten sheets mounted between the arms • MIMOSA-26 sensors • Digital CMOS pixel sensors, fabricated with 0.35mm AMS • 700mm thick (TBC) with 15mm epitaxial layer. • 1152×576 regular (i.e. no gaps) pixel array • Pixel pitch 18.4mm, total active area 21.2×10.6mm2 • Rolling shutter readout; each step is a group of 72 pixels in single row so 16 steps per row and 9216 steps for whole sensor • Rolling shutter time ~110ms total, so ~100ns per step • Data from two full rolling shutters around trigger are kept Paul Dauncey

  3. Sensor study motivation • Overall aim of beam test is to measure EM shower density • Form tracks in front three sensor layers • Project through tungsten to back three sensors layers • Measure particle density w.r.t. track projection position • Clusters of hits are used for two purposes • In front three layers to form track hits • In back three layers to count particles and know their position • For both need to know how a single particle forms a cluster • Determine by studying rates of various patterns of hits in clusters • Want average particle position within cluster for a given pattern • Want resolution of particle position for a given pattern Paul Dauncey

  4. Cluster patterns • Cluster pattern depends on where the particle passes through • If near centre, one pixel in cluster • If near centre of edge, two pixels in cluster • If near corner, four pixels in cluster • Classify by number of pixels and pattern • Some specific patterns are “physical”; all can be rotated/reflected • Examples of other patterns which are not physical Paul Dauncey

  5. Cluster patterns in data • Form track in the five “other” layers • Project into layer being studied and look for nearby clusters • Look at rates of clusters with various patterns • See non-negligible rate of a pixel firing twice in one event • Presumably this is due to real particle hit • Integrate over both time frames • Only count number of different pixels, not number of times fired, when characterising the clusters • Look at runs 20021-26 • All are 120GeV hadrons with no tungsten • Different threshold per run; 6.0-10.5 (in some arbitrary threshold units) Paul Dauncey

  6. Distance of cluster from track projection • Clean; almost no background even at threshold=6 • 5-hit tracks difficult to fake • Alignment looks OK; all centred on zero Paul Dauncey

  7. Cluster simulation • 2D simulation of charge spread and threshold • Standalone model of 5×5 pixel array • Put “charge” with Landau distribution at point; units MPV=1 • Initial position varied uniformly over 100×100 array in central pixel • Parameterise diffusion by spreading with Gaussian • Charge absorbed per pixel is integral of Gaussian over pixel area • Add noise per pixel and apply threshold • Tune parameters • Diffusion spread Gaussian width • Threshold units-to-MPV conversion factor • Pixel noise • Minimise chi-squared comparison with data cluster pattern distribution Paul Dauncey

  8. Tuning example Layer 0, threshold = 10.0 units • Chi-sq versus two parameters • Noise fixed to 2.4 threshold units • X axis is spread Gaussian width in % of pixel pitch • Y axis is conversion factor Sim Data 8% inefficiency Paul Dauncey

  9. Layer 0, threshold=6 Paul Dauncey

  10. Layer 0, threshold=8 Paul Dauncey

  11. Layer 0, threshold=9 Paul Dauncey

  12. Layer 0, threshold=10.5 Paul Dauncey

  13. Each layer tuned to all runs Paul Dauncey

  14. Tuning results • Parameters reasonable consistent for all thresholds and for five of the six layers • Spread Gaussian width ~ 25-30% ~ 5mm • Threshold unit-to-MPV conversion ~ 0.03-0.04 • E.g. threshold = 10 units ~ 0.3-0.4MPV; when charge split between four pixels, efficiency will be low • Noise ~ 2.4 threshold units ~ 0.08MPV • Layer 3 significantly different in conversion parameter • Spread width and noise similar • Threshold unit-to-MPV conversion ~ 0.09 • E.g. threshold = 9 units ~ 0.8MPV; generally will have low efficiency) • Annoying as this is closest layer to tungsten in shower runs Paul Dauncey

  15. Layer 3, threshold=9 42% inefficiency! Paul Dauncey

  16. Simulation positions for patterns Not layer 3 Paul Dauncey

  17. Cluster-track positions for N=0 • Left: Standalone simulation (no track, perfect position) • Middle: Data (including track resolution) ~ 100k events • Right: First go at full simulation (including tracking resolution) ~ 100k events Paul Dauncey

  18. Cluster-track positions for N=1, 2 line Paul Dauncey

  19. Cluster-track positions for N=3 L, 4 square Paul Dauncey

  20. Cluster resolution • Cross-check simulation using resolution • Each cluster pattern results from particle hitting particular position within pixel • Look at track projection positions for each cluster pattern • Look at resolution from simulation and data (subtracting track resolution) for each pattern • Resolve resolution along symmetry axes a a a b b b Paul Dauncey

  21. Layer 1 cluster-track residuals • Layer 1 has smallest track resolution • Histograms show a (solid) and b (dashed) residuals in each category Paul Dauncey

  22. Layer 1 resolutions • Left: Data, right: full simulation; a and b resolutions in each category • Red is raw RMS, blue is with track resolution subtracted • Qualitative agreement, except category 4 (N=3L) is quite different • Not understood.... • Quantitative agreement to ~20% level for others Paul Dauncey

  23. One other oddity not understood... • Rolling shutter readout with two frames per event • Cluster hits should appear in frame 0 if in high rows and frame 1 if in low rows; depends on trigger (“pivot”) time Full simulation Data, p high rate Data, e low rate Paul Dauncey

  24. Conclusions and future work • Sensor simulation seems to give good agreement • Gives right cluster shapes and reasonable resolutions • Chris and Sam will finish at the end of March • Some tweaking of simulation parameter tuning • Obtain standalone simulation resolutions • Next steps (by me...) • Interface fully to GEANT4 simulation • Model positron showers as taken in real data • Measure apparent density of shower hits in layers 3,4,5 • Correct using simulation to true density at back of tungsten block Paul Dauncey

More Related