Calibration Status

online calibration:  pedestal calibration  pulser calibration offline calibration (em):  geometry dependent corrections  scale-corrections Z  ee  E t /p t studies at different energies  energies in  -cracks Ursula Bassler 4/28/2020 1

Pedestal calibration: strategies

 imminent: deployment of new calibration databases and associated validation scheme (  status calorimeter meeting tomorrow)  possible online calibration strategies:  pedestal reference run: 10k events/gain path used for download and offline 0-suppression  pedestal monitoring run: monitoring pedestal drift  500 events/gain path used for drifted channels to be flagged, killed? updated?

 Pedestal Calibration Validation - flags and kills channels with:  incorrect mean/sigma values  drift values Ursula Bassler 4/28/2020 2

Pedestal calibration: mean/sigma

 monitoring run: 500 events  mean: 10  cut  470

Pedestal drift

 reference and monitoring run taken one after the other  (mean-ref)  500/sigma: 5  cut  sigma-ref: cut at 2?

 gain8/gain1 differences?

Ursula Bassler 4/28/2020 4

Pulser calibration: strategies

   3 standard set of linearity runs: gain 8: 80 steps of DAC-step 20 (~20MeV) gain 8: 80 steps of DAC-step 200 gain 1: 80 steps of DAC-step 1600 monitoring pulser run: free gain: 2 steps DAC=5000 and DAC=15000 timing calibration: gain 8, DAC=5000, 50 steps of delay=5 (~10ns) status: 2 sets of gain/nlc calibration coefficients (2002/2003) taken at fixed timing no corrections applied Ursula Bassler 4/28/2020 5

Pulser calibration: offset

 determination of gain coefficients and nlc corrections  negative pulser offset (i.e. DAC=0 gives already a pulse)  NLC corrections at small energies  DAC-component exchanged on pulsers during shutdown  possibility to download offset for each pulser (trigger studies) Ursula Bassler 4/28/2020 x offset 9 11 2 3 8 6 4 1

Robert Zitoun

6

Pulser: delay correction factors

 slope determined by linearity ramps depends on delay value  correction factors can be determined for difference between delay used for calibration and delay at max. signal height  but: relative difference in delay corresponds to relative difference in timing for physics signal if not too far  possibility to optimize delay per 1/6 of each pulser via automatic download Ursula Bassler used for delay calibration delay at pulse max correction factors 4/28/2020

Stephanie Beauceron

7

Pulser: pulse shape corrections

Sergey Burdin

 correction factors taking into account difference in signal shape between calibration pulse and physics signal  determination from pulse shape simulation: good agreement for calibration pulse, ambiguity for physics signal between scope measurement and triple sampling data  triple sampling data with +/-5 ticks Ursula Bassler 4/28/2020 8

em-calib: geometry dep. corrections

p10 5 GeV p13.06

0,7 GeV 0,2 GeV Ursula Bassler 50 GeV 1,6 GeV 0,5 GeV

Anne-Marie Magnan

   important as long as no PS energies are used more important with p13.06

no done for p13.08, smaller?

4/28/2020 9

Energy in EC Calorimeter

p13.06: energy from floors p10 50 GeV Not the same behaviour!

4/28/2020

Anne-Marie Magnan

10 Ursula Bassler

s b Run I 0.15

0.16

MC energy resolution

Eta corrections p10 No correction p13 Eta corrections p13 0.202 ± 0.006

0.19 ± 0.01

0.199 ± 0.008

0.23 ± 0.10

0.59 ± 0.08

0.42 ± 0.08

c 0.003

0.004 ± 0.002

0.0085 ± 0.0014

0.0076 ± 0.0014

Anne-Marie Magnan

 higher noise term in MC p13 than p10 and in Run 1  to be determined from data: constant term?

Ursula Bassler 4/28/2020 11

scale correction Z



ee

ECN x42 x49 x43 x48 ECS

Alexis Cothenet

 scale factors derived in calorimeter detector regions  ~1000 events with p13.05 data Ursula Bassler 4/28/2020 12

Z-mass peak

 after all corrections  2 tracks matching required  resolution larger than in MC Ursula Bassler 4/28/2020

Alexis Cothenet

13

1.10

0.97

1.04

0.92

Oleg Kouznetsov

Ursula Bassler

E

t

/p

t

comparison

1.00

1.01

 Et/pt comparison for different energy regions after geometry dependent corrections  where are all these electrons coming from?

 pt< 10 GeV underestimated?

 pt>40 GeV overestimated?

1.07

MC: E gen 5 GeV 0.78

10 GeV 50 GeV 200 GeV 4/28/2020 mean 0.96

0.98

1.0

1.0

sigma 0.19

0.20

0.20

0.31

14

E

t

/p

t

:resolution

 from p11 data Ursula Bassler 4/28/2020

Oleg Kouznetsov

15

energy in



-cracks: E

t

/p

t

 studies for p13 underway

Oleg Kouznetsov

 corrections with FH1 energy not possible after realistic MC simulation Ursula Bassler 4/28/2020 16

Summary

 “final” online calibration procedure is (slowly…) coming together  better following of the calorimeter behavior  better data quality  correction to gain/nlc calibration to be studied  good MC is crucial for offline calibration: changes with p13.08 in geometry dependent corrections…  Z resolution not understood yet  promising distributions from E/p Ursula Bassler 4/28/2020 17