1 / 23

GEM-DHCal Performance and Energy Flow Algorithm Studies

GEM-DHCal Performance and Energy Flow Algorithm Studies. ALCW 2004, SLAC Jae Yu University of Texas at Arlington. Single Pion Performance Study Study of Pythia events Energy Flow Algorithm Single pion Track – cluster matching studies Conclusions.

naiya
Download Presentation

GEM-DHCal Performance and Energy Flow Algorithm Studies

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. GEM-DHCal Performance and Energy Flow Algorithm Studies ALCW 2004, SLAC Jae YuUniversity of Texas at Arlington • Single Pion Performance Study • Study of Pythia events • Energy Flow Algorithm • Single pion Track – cluster matching studies • Conclusions *On behalf of the HEP group at UTA. GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  2. Introduction • DHCAL a solution for keeping the cost manageable for EFA • Finer cell sizes are needed for efficient calorimeter cluster association with tracks and subsequent energy subtraction • UTA focused on DHCAL using GEM for • Flexible geometrical design, using printed circuit pads • Cell sizes can be as fine a readout as GEM tracking chamber!! • High gains, above 103~4,with spark probabilities per incident  less than 10-10 • Fast response • 40ns drift time for 3mm gap with ArCO2 • Relatively low HV • A few 100V per each GEM gap • Possibility for reasonable cost • Foils are basically copper-clad kapton • 3M produces foils in large quantities (12”x500ft rolls) GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  3. UTA GEM Simulation • Use Mokka as the primary tool • Kept the same detector dimensions as TESLA TDR • Replaced the HCAL scintillation counters with GEM (18mm SS + 6.5mm GEM, 1cmx1cm cells) • Single Pions used for initial studies • 3 – 100 GeV single pions • Analyzed them using ROOT • Compared the results to TDR analog as the benchmark • GEM Analog and Digital (w/o threshold) • ECal is always analog GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  4. Detailed GEM ArCO 2 0. 00 6.5mm 5 1 Cu Simple GEM . 0. 0 00 Kapton 5 G10 ArCO2 3.4 mm GEM 3.1 mm UTA Double GEM Geometry GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  5. Performance Comparisons of Detailed and Simple GEM Geometries Detailed GEM 75GeV p Simple GEM 75GeV p <E>=0.81  0.008MeV <E>=0.80  0.007MeV • 25.2sec/event for Simple GEM v/s 43.7 sec/event for Detailed GEM • Responses look similar for detailed and simple GEM geometry • Simple GEM sufficient GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  6. GEM-Digital: Elive vs # of hits for π- GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  7. EM-HCAL Weighting Factor • ELive=SEEM+ WSGEHCAL • For analog: • L + G is used to determine the mean values as a function of incident pion energy for EM and HAD • Define the range for single Gaussian fit using the mean • Take the mean of the Gaussian fit as central value • Choose the difference between G and L+G fit means as the systematic uncertainty • For digital: • Gaussian for entire energy range is used to determine the mean • Fit in the range that corresponds to 15% of the peak • Choose the 15% G fit mean as the central value • Difference between the two G as the systematic uncertainty • Obtained the relative weight W using these mean values for EM only v/s HCAL only events • Perform linear fit to Mean values as a function of incident pion energy • Extract ratio of the slopes  Weight factor W • E = C* ELive GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  8. Response - Comparison GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  9. GEM Analog & Digital Converted: 15 and 50 GeV π- 50GeV Analog 15GeV Analog 15GeV Digital 50GeV Digital GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  10. Resolution - Comparison GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  11. GEM Performance Study Summary • GEM digital and analog responses comparable • Large remaining Landau fluctuation in analog mode observed • Digital method removes large fluctuation  Become more Gaussian • GEM Energy resolutions • Digital comparable to TDR • Analog resolution worse than GEM digital or TDR • GEM is as good a detector as others for DHCAL GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  12. Does more Gaussian Behavior of GEM digital make sense? • Gas detectors have small number of primary ionization electrons  Very Landau like distributions • Large amplification only stretches out the Landau distribution • Amplification does not increase the number of primary electrons • It only worsens the fluctuation • The cells with large energy due to the fluctuation get saturated • Suppressing the large energy tail • While preserving low energy distributions GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  13. 10 GeV 100 GeV • Saturation occurs at every energy • Is this a good thing? I think so, as long as the linear region in each energy bin is sufficiently wide GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  14. Analysis of • Energy distribution of final state particles in jets • Choose a ΔR = 0.5 cone around a quark to define a jet • Determine energy fraction of jets carried by EM, Neutral and Hadrons • Determine the relative distances between all pairs of charged, neutral particles in the cone • Use two pions to study effective charged hadron energy subtraction • Study of centroid finding algorithm GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  15. Energy distribution in a jet GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  16. Fraction Energy of Particles in Jets Neutral Hadrons Electromagnetic Charged Hadrons GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  17. DR Between All Particles in Jets GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  18. Energy Flow Studies for π- • Pions Eπ- = 7.5 GeV chosen for study • Studied the energy distribution of pions in jet events • Find the centroid of the shower ( HCAL ) using • Energy weighted method • Hits weighted method • Density weighted method • Matched the extrapolated centroid with TPC last layer hit to get Δ and Δφ distribution GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  19. Determination of Calorimeter Centroid • Identify layers with hits (at least 3 hits required) • Fit a line through all layers (at least 2 layers with 3 or more hits required) • Extrapolate the line to TPC last layer • Compare tpc with hcal and tpc with hcal GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  20. Methods for determination of centroid Hits Weighted Method Energy Weighted Method Density Weighted Method For all three methods: GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  21.  - 7.5 GeV π- Energy Weighted Method Density Weighted Method Hits Weighted Method GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  22.  - 7.5 GeV π- Density Weighted Method Energy Weighted Method Hits Weighted Method GEM DHCAL J. Yu

  23. Conclusions • GEM Analog and digital performance studies completed • GEM Analog resolution a nit worse than TDR and other studies due to large Landau like fluctuation • GEM Digital resolution comparable with TDR and other studies • Threshold dependence in progress • Translate these resolutions into jet energy resolution • A energy flow algorithm study using single pion events began • DR of single particles in typical jets •  and  using 3 different methods • Compared the three methods • Durham jet algorithm is being implemented • Resolving 2 pions as function of DR using Mokka • Kaushik is working on his thesis that will contain both the studies • A visiting professor and an undergraduate student will join this semester for EFA studies GEM DHCAL J. Yu

More Related