1 / 13

New ideas and old doubts about the calorimeter shaking procedure

New ideas and old doubts about the calorimeter shaking procedure. Andrea Venturi INFN Pisa. ECAL and HCAL cluster energies are changed according to the observed data vs MC discreapancies as a function of polar angle qqbar events at Z peak polar angle from jet direction

buck
Télécharger la présentation

New ideas and old doubts about the calorimeter shaking procedure

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. New ideas and old doubts about the calorimeter shaking procedure Andrea Venturi INFN Pisa Calorimeter shaking -Andrea Venturi - April '01 ALEPH week

  2. ECAL and HCAL cluster energies are changed according to the observed data vs MC discreapancies as a function of polar angle qqbar events at Z peak polar angle from jet direction at a lower level w.r.t. EFLOW because of jet corrections PHCO for HCAL PECO, PEST,ETDI,...for ECAL number of “raw” clusters is not changed it does not work if this is a relevant discreapancy Results (winter 01) 4q: 9 MeV electrons: 20 MeV muons: 5 MeV taus: 5 MeV The procedure has to be validate “a posteriori” check “higher level” observables before and after shaking: the changes should be of the level of the discrepancies angular bias visible energy ... understand the results electron/muon difference: brems corr ? Present status Calorimeter shaking -Andrea Venturi - April '01 ALEPH week

  3. HCAL shaking  data MC data/MC Calorimeter shaking -Andrea Venturi - April '01 ALEPH week

  4. ECAL shaking  data MC data/MC Calorimeter shaking -Andrea Venturi - April '01 ALEPH week

  5. Gampex ETDI (towers) Platine Coradoc MC  data PHCO Corrections: leakage overlap cracks …. PECO raw Eflow Photons PECO corr. Type 5 (neut had) Eflow Type 4 (photons) Type 5 (neut had) Calorimeter shaking -Andrea Venturi - April '01 ALEPH week

  6. EFLOW energy: jet correction  data MC  data MC Calorimeter shaking -Andrea Venturi - April '01 ALEPH week

  7. Higher level observables and shaking black : MC (not shaken) blue : MC (shaken)  data  MC (shaken) by Ann  no shaking  shaking Calorimeter shaking -Andrea Venturi - April '01 ALEPH week

  8. ECAL is crucial and the present shaking is not that good: PECO raw vs PECO corrected data vs MC discrepancies are different EFLOW (#5) uses PECO corrected EFLOW (#4) uses GAMPEX same correction as PECO corr. ? the shaking parameters are taken from PECO raw Why different discrepancies ? it could be a useful tool to study ECAL simulation discrepancies What should we use for the shaking ? should we use “shaking” ? ECAL is not easy PECO corr: data/MC PECO raw: data/MC Calorimeter shaking -Andrea Venturi - April '01 ALEPH week

  9. Two different processes produce signal in ECAL e.m. interactions (photons, electrons) hadronic interactions (hadrons) data vs MC discrepancies can be very different Different shaking based on the particle id (identified photons/electrons) is not enough it does not take into account identification efficiency/purity it is not easy to propagate the shaking back to the “raw” banks cfr brems correction in lnqq Ideal: use of the MC history banks are they ok for ECAL ? Discrepancy is larger for type 4 and 5 separately than for the sum shaking should “migrate” the energy from photons to neutral hadrons and viceversa cfr. my test with modified ECAL noise banks study photon id algorithm to understand how to shake to change the algorithm performance shake each ECAL stack independently ? MC history banks ? Brems correction (enqq) have specific studies ever been done ? check the effect of the shaking ECAL is not easy (II) Calorimeter shaking -Andrea Venturi - April '01 ALEPH week

  10. std ENNO bank new ENNO bank Calorimeter shaking -Andrea Venturi - April '01 ALEPH week

  11. Identified photon energies are corrected with corrections (CORADOC) which are different between data and MC how are they evaluated: pi0’s ? di-muons radiative events ? electrons ? to be asked to MNM…(done!) Photons: ad hoc corrections Calorimeter shaking -Andrea Venturi - April '01 ALEPH week

  12. Photons corrections are like jet corrections: they try to correct for the data vs MC discrepancy this has to be taken into account in the shaking procedure once the shaking has been applied , new MC photon corrections have to be evaluated and used. not because photons are better !! But, are we sure about the present photon energy corrections: do we need better correction or tracking resolution problems ? Photons (II) Calorimeter shaking -Andrea Venturi - April '01 ALEPH week

  13. To be understood PECO: raw vs corrected noise banks and better agreement: why ? Not to be forgotten photon energy corrections are not taken into account in shaking neither if they are correct: less discrepancy nor if they are not correct: additional discrepancy To be done shaking-dependent photon corrections check observables after shaking e/mu present difference To be checked have photon corrections to be improved ? simulation of the electron brems (reconstruction) who knows if it was studied in the early days ? Summary Calorimeter shaking -Andrea Venturi - April '01 ALEPH week

More Related