Calorimeter energy calibration using the energy conservation law

Transcription

1 Abs Calibr 1 Calorimeter energy calibration using the energy conservation law V. Morgunov DESY, Hamburg and ITEP, Moscow LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 26. The copy of this talk one can find at the morgunov Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

2 Abs Calibr 2 How to get calorimeter energy conversion coeffs? Easy: One should run muons in Monte Carlo, take whole energy in absorber and scintillator, and divide it by energy in the scintillator. The reason for this is: if one particle crosses one sampling layer it should deposit the whole energy, but we can measure the scintillator energy only. But: the cascade in matter consists of not only pure particles (track like) but rather dense electromagnetic showers and a mixture of the photoeffect s and compton scattered electrons together with pure track like energy deposition. This leads to the co called e/π ratio for the calorimeter response for different types of particles. The using of the complex calorimeter, which we have in LDC detector, leads to even more tricky procedure for the calibration, because it needs to define the coeffs for each part of the calorimeter with different samplings and then choose the correct ratio between that coeffs to get a correct whole measured energy. So, let us start from the coeffs defined by muon run in the simulation. C = E whole /E visible for each sampling structures, that are three of them in our case. Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

3 Abs Calibr 3 How to get a whole event energy conservation? Hcal energy () 6 5 Old coeffs for t tbar to 6 jets, 5 The simple formula should give us an answer E Ecal + E Hcal = E CM but, we have no this see a picture. 4 So, let us rotate the black line to the position of the red one by rescaling the coefficient of 3 energy conversion (see previous slide). Rotation actually means of the affine trans- 2 formation of this 2 D space. (see next slide) 1 These rotated coeffs consist of all the properties of the whole LDC calorimeters as well as the flavor s containment of the jets! Ecal energy () E-ECAL vs E-HCAL Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

4 Abs Calibr 4 The black line equation is: How to rotate? a E Ecal + E Hcal = a (c 1 E vis1 + c 2 E vis2 ) + c 3 H vis = E where: c 1, c 2 and c 3 is an initial energy conversion coeffs, a is the slope which give us the minimal energy width. E is some constant the line should come through the most probable value of the initial energy sum. By the way; if the initial coeffs were bad fitted to the intrinsic mutual calorimeter properties (bad inter calibration), one will never get the sharp top right edge of the energy distribution as well as the most probable line! The red line equation is: E calib ECAL + Ecalib HCAL = E CM energy conservation law. Then we got the new coeffs: where: f = E CM /E ; and Let us require E = E CM and a = 1 exactly. c calib 1 = fa c 1, c calib 2 = fa c 2 and c calib 3 = fc 3 ; c calib 1 E vis1 + c calib 2 E vis2 + c calib 3 H vis = E CM along the most probable line These three coeffs will be applied latter on to each hit in the particular sampling regions of the calorimeter. For any events you will see below. Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

5 Abs Calibr 5 The results of rotation/rescaling are Hcal energy () 1 8 New coeffs for t tbar to 6 jets, 1 Hcal energy () New coeffs for t tbar to 6 jets, 5 Hcal energy () New coeffs for e+ e- to heavy quarks, Ecal energy () E-ECAL vs E-HCAL Ecal energy () E-ECAL vs E-HCAL Ecal energy () E-ECAL vs E-HCAL Hcal energy () 1 8 New coeffs for W+ W- to everything, 1 Hcal energy () New coeffs for W+ W- to everything, 5 Hcal energy () New coeffs for e+ e- to light quarks, Ecal energy () E-ECAL vs E-HCAL Ecal energy () E-ECAL vs E-HCAL Ecal energy () E-ECAL vs E-HCAL Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

6 Abs Calibr 6 Calorimeter energy sum 12 New coeffs for t tbar to 6 jets, 1 Constant 15.8 Mean Sigma New coeffs for t tbar to 6 jets, 5 Constant Mean Sigma New coeffs for e+ e- to heavy quarks, 5 Constant 14.5 Mean 495. Sigma New coeffs for W+ W- to everything, 1 Constant Mean Sigma New coeffs for W+ W- to everything, 5 Constant Mean Sigma New coeffs for e+ e- to light quarks, 5 Constant Mean Sigma Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

7 Abs Calibr 7 about Available Energy Events for all these plots were generated without luminosity curve and without ISR, so, the whole sum of energy in HEP record is equal of the center mass energy exactly. To calculate available energy for calorimeters one should subtract the neutrino energies, as well as the energy of particles which go to the beam tube (acceptance detector inefficiency); and also subtract the muons energies but with leaving of the energy which deposited by any muon in the calorimeter, which is about 1.6 per muon. So, the estimated energy to be measured by calorimeters for each event is: E available = E CM E neutrinos E to tube E muons + N muons 1.6 Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

8 Abs Calibr 8 Check plots 12 1 Check quality, t tbar to 6 jets, 1 Constant 13. Mean.1879 Sigma Check quality, t tbar to 6 jets, 5 Constant Mean 1.22 Sigma Check quality, e+ e- to heavy quarks, 5 Constant Mean Sigma Check quality, W+ W- to everything, 1 Constant 11.8 Mean Sigma Check quality, W+ W- to everything, 5 Constant 16.7 Mean 3.16 Sigma Check quality, e+ e- to light quarks, 5 Constant 72.4 Mean Sigma Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

9 Abs Calibr 9 For reference Z pole reaction Hcal energy () 1 8 Z to everything, Z to everything, 91.2 Constant Mean 9.44 Sigma Ecal energy () E-ECAL vs E-HCAL All decay channels are allowed. Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

10 Abs Calibr 1 Check plot 12 1 Check quality, Z to everything, 91.2 Constant 99.7 Mean E-1 Sigma Sigma = 44.5 % Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

11 Abs Calibr 11 Marlin Reco also knows about this LDC (tile HCal), 4T χ 2 / ndf / 63 Prob 1.517e-8 Normalisation Mean Sigma Central Part Sigma Left Tail 9.77 Sigma Right Tail Fraction Central Part Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

12 Abs Calibr 12 Summary Table, model LDC Whole calorimeter sum Check plots e+ e- into, at energy Mean [] Sigma [] Mean [] Estimated energy resolution [] t tbar, W+ W-, t tbar, W+ W-, heavy quarks, light quarks, t tbar, Z pole, Any reconstruction program should give us these resolutions, at least. Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

13 Abs Calibr 13 Detector models comparison, 4 Tesla, W+ W-, e+ e- to W+ W-, / 22 Constant Mean Sigma e+ e- to W+ W-, / 22 Constant Mean 53.1 Sigma Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

14 Abs Calibr 14 Attempt of Optimization Shift of the most probable peak of energy from the center of mass energy. 3 Tesla 4 Tesla LDC1 LDC LDC1 LDC e+ e- into, at energy W+ W-, t tbar, t tbar, Tendency is visible, BUT, to make any decision on these numbers is too hard, they are around one percent of whole energy. All detector models are good from the point of view of the energy consistence in the calorimeter. Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

15 Abs Calibr 15 Conclusion Let us use the energy conservation law with its full power. Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

16 Abs Calibr 16 After the conclusion (ZEUS data) For HERA experiments this feature also can be used but at the more complex way. The relative calibration can be done using E P z = 2 E e beam equation. Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

17 Abs Calibr 17 Support slides Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

18 Abs Calibr 18 Once chosen coeffs work for any energy Hcal energy () 1 8 New coeffs for t tbar to 6 jets, New coeffs for t tbar to 6 jets, 1 Constant 15.8 Mean Sigma Ecal energy () E-ECAL vs E-HCAL e + e t t 6 jets, semileptonic decay channels for W ± were prohibited. Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

19 Abs Calibr 19 Let us check the result again 12 1 Check quality, t tbar to 6 jets, 1 Constant 13. Mean.1879 Sigma Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

20 Abs Calibr 2 And any reactions Hcal energy () 1 8 New coeffs for W+ W- to everything, New coeffs for W+ W- to everything, 1 Constant Mean Sigma Ecal energy () E-ECAL vs E-HCAL e + e W + W, all decay channels for W ± are allowed. HEP record has cut: Cos(W ) <.9 Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

21 Abs Calibr 21 And again, let us check the result Check quality, W+ W- to everything, 1 Constant 11.8 Mean Sigma Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

22 Abs Calibr 22 As for light quarks Hcal energy () New coeffs for e+ e- to light quarks, New coeffs for e+ e- to light quarks, 5 Constant Mean Sigma Ecal energy () E-ECAL vs E-HCAL Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

23 Abs Calibr 23 Let us check the result 9 8 Check quality, e+ e- to light quarks, 5 Constant 72.4 Mean Sigma Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

24 Abs Calibr 24 As for heavy quarks Hcal energy () New coeffs for e+ e- to heavy quarks, New coeffs for e+ e- to heavy quarks, 5 Constant 14.5 Mean 495. Sigma Ecal energy () E-ECAL vs E-HCAL Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

25 Abs Calibr 25 Let us check the result 1 Check quality, e+ e- to heavy quarks, 5 Constant Mean Sigma Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

26 Abs Calibr 26 Detector models comparison, 4 Tesla, W+ W-, e+ e- to W+ W-, / 22 Constant Mean Sigma e+ e- to W+ W-, / 22 Constant Mean Sigma e+ e- to W+ W-, / 22 Constant 71.5 Mean 54.2 Sigma e+ e- to W+ W-, / 22 Constant Mean 53.1 Sigma Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

27 Abs Calibr 27 Detector models comparison, 3 Tesla, W+ W-, 5 8 e+ e- to W+ W-, / 22 Constant Mean Sigma e+ e- to W+ W-, / 22 Constant Mean Sigma e+ e- to W+ W-, / 22 Constant 7.15 Mean 53.1 Sigma e+ e- to W+ W-, / 22 Constant Mean 52.4 Sigma Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

28 Abs Calibr 28 Detector models comparison, 4 Tesla, t tbar, e+ e- to t tbar, / 22 Constant 18.6 Mean Sigma e+ e- to t tbar, / 22 Constant 17.8 Mean 495. Sigma e+ e- to t tbar, / 22 Constant 19.8 Mean Sigma e+ e- to t tbar, / 22 Constant 17.7 Mean 497. Sigma Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

29 Abs Calibr 29 Detector models comparison, 3 Tesla, t tbar, 5 12 e+ e- to t tbar, / 22 Constant 13. Mean Sigma e+ e- to t tbar, / 22 Constant Mean 493. Sigma e+ e- to t tbar, / 22 Constant Mean Sigma e+ e- to t tbar, / 22 Constant 11.4 Mean Sigma Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

30 Abs Calibr 3 Detector models comparison, 4 Tesla, t tbar, e+ e- to t tbar, / 18 Constant Mean Sigma e+ e- to t tbar, / 18 Constant Mean Sigma e+ e- to t tbar, / 18 Constant Mean Sigma e+ e- to t tbar, / 18 Constant Mean 355. Sigma Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

31 Abs Calibr 31 Detector models comparison, 3 Tesla, t tbar, e+ e- to t tbar, / 18 Constant Mean Sigma e+ e- to t tbar, / 18 Constant 14.2 Mean Sigma e+ e- to t tbar, / 18 Constant Mean Sigma e+ e- to t tbar, / 22 Constant 11.4 Mean Sigma Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

32 Abs Calibr 32 Detector models comparison, 4 Tesla, W+ W-, 5 25 Check quality, e+ e- to W+ W-, / 14 Constant Mean 2.94 Sigma Check quality, e+ e- to W+ W-, / 14 Constant 21.6 Mean 3.29 Sigma Check quality, e+ e- to W+ W-, / 14 Constant 2.8 Mean 7.21 Sigma Check quality, e+ e- to W+ W-, / 14 Constant 23.9 Mean 7.3 Sigma Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

33 Abs Calibr 33 Detector models comparison, 3 Tesla, W+ W-, 5 25 Check quality, e+ e- to W+ W-, / 14 Constant 24.5 Mean.182 Sigma Check quality, e+ e- to W+ W-, / 14 Constant 26. Mean Sigma Check quality, e+ e- to W+ W-, / 14 Constant Mean 6.8 Sigma Check quality, e+ e- to W+ W-, / 14 Constant Mean Sigma Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

34 Abs Calibr 34 Detector models comparison, 4 Tesla, t tbar, Check quality, e+ e- to t tbar, / 14 Constant Mean Sigma Check quality, e+ e- to t tbar, / 14 Constant Mean 4.18 Sigma Check quality, e+ e- to t tbar, / 14 Constant Mean Sigma Check quality, e+ e- to t tbar, / 14 Constant Mean Sigma Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

35 Abs Calibr 35 Detector models comparison, 3 Tesla, t tbar, Check quality, e+ e- to t tbar, / 14 Constant Mean Sigma Check quality, e+ e- to t tbar, / 14 Constant Mean 2.44 Sigma Check quality, e+ e- to t tbar, / 14 Constant 184. Mean Sigma Check quality, e+ e- to t tbar, / 14 Constant Mean Sigma Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

36 Abs Calibr 36 Detector models comparison, 4 Tesla, t tbar, Check quality, e+ e- to t tbar, / 18 Constant Mean Sigma Check quality, e+ e- to t tbar, / 18 Constant Mean 2.85 Sigma Check quality, e+ e- to t tbar, / 18 Constant 224. Mean 5.53 Sigma Check quality, e+ e- to t tbar, / 18 Constant Mean Sigma Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26

37 Abs Calibr 37 Detector models comparison, 3 Tesla, t tbar, Check quality, e+ e- to t tbar, / 18 Constant Mean Sigma Check quality, e+ e- to t tbar, / 18 Constant 215. Mean Sigma Check quality, e+ e- to t tbar, / 18 Constant 218. Mean Sigma Check quality, e+ e- to t tbar, / 14 Constant Mean Sigma Vasiliy Morgunov LCWS26, Bangalore, India, 9-13 March 26