Transcript ppt
Status Report of Overall Trigger and Latching Efficiencies Study(2) -- Comparison with MC Prediction -- Instrument Analysis meeting, June 10, 2005 H. Takahashi (Univ. of Tokyo), T. Mizuno (Hiroshima Univ./SLAC), M. Ohishi (Hiroshima Univ.), T. Kamae, G. Godfrey and H. Tajima (SLAC) TriggerLatchingEffLAT_2005-06-10.ppt 1 Test Configuration Objective: Measure and monitor local/overall “trigger/latching(hit)” efficiencies (including Si gap, insensitive area, alignment, etc.) “Method 1”: without muon telescope “Method 2”: with muon telescope •Select muon-like events with TKR (keep bias as small as possible; use only 3 top layers and the bottommost one) •Test intermediate layers •Comparison with Gleam simulation (direction/position measured by TKR) •Select muon-like events with muon telescope (plastic scintillators) •Unbiased overall efficiency study •Comparison with Gleam simulation (require muons to cross plastic scintillators) single tower/ two towers two towers Here we show the comparison with MC prediction for “Method 1” TriggerLatchingEffLAT_2005-06-10.ppt 2 Comparison with MC simulation(1) •Run id: 135002153 (two tower data, 213k events) •Select muon-like events that pass from top of Tower A to the bottom of Tower A •Use EM of v4r060302p23 for MC simulation X-layers test region latch efficiency trigger efficiency Gleam prediction X-layers Sim/Data Eff. of each plane latching efficiencies normalized to 1 0 4 (A) (B) Layer number •Efficiencies (including gap and insensitive region) are well reproduced by simulation in ~1%. TriggerLatchingEffLAT_2005-06-10.ppt 3 Comparison with MC simulation(2) •From the top of Tower A to the bottom of Tower A Y-layers test region latch efficiency trigger efficiency Gleam prediction Y-layers Sim/Data Eff. of each plane latching efficiencies normalized to 1 0 4 (A) (B) Layer number •Efficiencies (including gap and insensitive region) are well reproduced by simulation in ~1% except for the plane Y4 with many partially dead strips. TriggerLatchingEffLAT_2005-06-10.ppt 4 Comparison with MC simulation(3) •From the top of Tower B to the bottom of Tower B X-layers 0 4 (A) (B) Y-layers Sim/Data Sim/Data normalized to 1 With partially dead strips Layer number •Again, data are well reproduced by simulation in ~1%. Plane by plane efficiencies are well understood and predicted by MC. TriggerLatchingEffLAT_2005-06-10.ppt 5 Conclusion and Future Plane • We have compared 2-tower data with MC prediction for muon-like events with measured position/direction. • Good agreement in ~1% for each tower. Gleam reproduces data well including gap and insensitive regions. • Now checking events which pass through 2 towers. • We will study event coincidence with muon telescope in detail, including comparison with MC simulation. TriggerLatchingEffLAT_2005-06-10.ppt 6