1 / 7

Validation for LHC experiments

Validation for LHC experiments. 11.09.2012. Content. Current status O pen points LHCb request What should we do next for LHC validation. Current status. simplified calorimeter ATLAS TileCal , LHCb HAD Fe/ Scintilator ATLAS ECal Pb / Ar ATLAS HEC Cu/ Ar ATLAS FCal W/ Ar

jamar
Télécharger la présentation

Validation for LHC experiments

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. Validation for LHC experiments 11.09.2012

  2. Content • Current status • Open points • LHCb request • What should we do next for LHC validation

  3. Current status • simplified calorimeter • ATLAS TileCal, LHCb HAD Fe/Scintilator • ATLAS ECalPb/Ar • ATLAS HEC Cu/Ar • ATLAS FCal W/Ar • CMS ECalPb/WO4 • LHCb EM Pb/Scinilator • CALICE W/Scintilator • ZEUS Pb/Scintlator

  4. Open points • resolution • lateral shower shape • non conservation of important quantities

  5. LHCb request • validation of thin target • observables relevant for trackers • multiplicity • cross sections

  6. What should be done next? • Neutron interactions (even at low-E) are very important to study details of showers • Only study so far to show clear effect in lateral shower shape • In some cases (time structure) are mandatory to correctly describe data • Preliminary results: Doppler broadening not needed (import CPU time saving) • Need dedicated validation of neutrons on scintillators (recoil of H nuclei) • Adding of a cascade backend to string model (to de-excite nucleus) • Hints that can make shower longer (FTF has discrepancy between TileCal and CALICE) • Improve agreement with data for resolution • A review/tune of π0 production from FTF could: • Reduce visible energy (that is at the moment too high) • Increase agreement for resolution

  7. Naive proposal • We have not yet studied in detail the role of Precompound/deexitation model for HEP experiments • But we know it is very important and we need it. I would not be surprised if in the future it will become an “hot” topic • CALICE data show FTF_BIC is not so bad... • And we have thin-target data showing BIC is even the best model in some cases • A possible future “universal physics list for calorimetry” n:HP + BERP + p,n:BIC + FTF+BIC/BERP

More Related