1 / 10

ECAL CALIBRATION

ECAL CALIBRATION. Contacts: Marat Gataullin, Riccardo Paramatti All phisymmetry and pizero plots were done using Barrel data. EE precalibration.

urbana
Download Presentation

ECAL CALIBRATION

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. ECAL CALIBRATION Contacts: Marat Gataullin, Riccardo Paramatti All phisymmetry and pizero plots were done using Barrel data

  2. EE precalibration Relative difference between the intercalibration coefficients derived from the combination of all available measurements (laboratory, 2008 and 2009 beam dump data) and the intercalibration coefficients from test beam versus the intercalibration coefficients from test beam (left). The agreement is about 4.6% (right). Contact persons for Beam Splash results: Martina Malberti, Tommaso Tabarelli DN in preparation

  3. Phi Symmetry Expected Precision p0 = 2.22% +/- 0.03%   ring ηindex 24 η= 0.42 Expected intercalibration precision vs eta of the ring (left) and vs number of events (right). RecHit energy cut = 250 MeV 25 Mevents of 7 TeV Minimum Bias in the left plot corresponding to 0.02 in x axis of right plot. Contact persons for Phi Symmetry results: Stefano Argirò, Margherita Obertino DN in preparation

  4. Phi Symmetry SM scale 2009 vs 2010 collisions (only stat. errors) EB SuperModule scale • 2010 collisions (only stat. errors.) • Phi Symmetry • Pi Zero

  5. Distribution of (weighted average) scale of 10 Supermodules calibrated with beam in H4 RMS: 0.50% Test Beam vs Cosmics SMs • Distribution of (weighted average) scale of 26 Supermodules calibrated only with cosmics • RMS: 1.2% (0.75% without 3 outliers)

  6. Pi0 Peak from MB events Reconstructed neutral pion peak. Good agreement observed for the resolution and S/B. The scale agrees to the expectation to within 1%. Contact persons for pi0/eta results: Yong Yang, Marat Gataullin Except for the Alca peaks, all other plots were done using prompt Reco Minbias and the corresponding Monte Carlo. The pt cuts are listed on the plots. In addition a shower-shape cut S4/S9 > 0.83 was applied to improve the purity. Details of the selection, Alca streams and projected performance can be found in DN 2009/006 and 2009/007. A cluster-based energy correction that depends on energy and rapidity was derived and applied both to data and MC.

  7. Eta Peak from MB events Reconstructed eta meson peak. Good agreement observed for the resolution, the scale agrees to the expectation to within 1%.

  8. Pi0 Rate as a function of Eta and transverse momentum distributions Left: pi0 rate (dN/deta) as measured by fitting the pi0 peak for each eta bin Right: same for dN/dPt Good agreement observed.

  9. Performance of the Pi0/Eta Calibration Streams Calibration trigger: tighter cuts were applied optimized for ~10^29. Pt(gamma)>0.8 GeV (instead of 0.3 GeV for the offline selection). The rate agrees with the MC expectation to about 20%. Details of the filter can be again found in DN 2009/006, 007.

  10. Performance of the Pi0/Eta Calibration Streams Left: Expected number of pi0’s per crystal from the Pi0 calibration stream, per pb-1. Estimated using the actual performance observed on the last plot. Right: Signal/Background as a function of the eta-ring: as measured in real data.

More Related