1 / 4

Open issues in APD analysis

Open issues in APD analysis. No ( unfortunately ) progress in APD analysis Status: As it was presented by Hendrik in Durham (energy linearity and resolution + new phys. MC) Consistency between different data taking Good agreement among data of PD and MC

ronni
Download Presentation

Open issues in APD 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. Open issues in APD analysis No (unfortunately) progress in APD analysis Status: • As it was presented by Hendrik in Durham (energy linearity and resolution + new phys. MC) • Consistency between different data taking • Good agreement among data of PD and MC • No systematic uncertainties applied … these weeks work

  2. Next plans: study of systematic errors (1) Open points, namely(according to Gerald’s email): • Beam spread - about 3% of beam energy, no problem applied • Reproducibility of results on calibration and energy scan - mainly for MIP calibration - many data sets to compare (diff. HV, gate, T) - sometimes taken 2-3 files with same conditions (negl. temp. ~0.1K)  stability of calibration - fit procedure: choice of intervals (simple gauss), strange behavior of fit (gauss + landau)

  3. Next plans: study of systematic errors (2)  influence of pedestal in data trigger mode (low S/N)  showering: other peaks in landau tail  shift of MIPMPV position (cuts on pedestal, showering events, can be optimized and estimated in MC) • Effects of temperature, HV - monitoring of APDs with slow control - relative corrections from LEDs (presented as trigger mode), should be corrected to PIN response

  4. Next plans: study of systematic errors (3) • Second particle contamination - influence in gauss fit on energy sum (low energy) - question how to determine? - no trigger on multi particle detection - distribution depends tile to tile, on beam energy - some estimation from MC (ratio to 1 particle response)? • Others: - light collection homogeneity in tail (beam shift, data taken 1.5cm) - effect of summing 3 tiles vs. 1 tile for central and outer tiles (??) - pedestal stability, ADC stability, …

More Related