ADM

1
CALGO ? TMBfix

• CALGO recommends to implement in the next
  TMBfixing
• New Hot Cell Killer
• Restore ICR region to p13 status
• T42 in killing mode
• G. Bernardi for the CALGO group
• many thanks to
  S. Beauceron, E. Busato, L.
  Duflot, T. Golling, L. Groer, J. Stark, S. Shary,
  J.R. Vlimant for the plots shown in this talk,
  and to all the CALGO/CAT members for their
  contributions

2
DQ_Calo Hot Cell Killer
Offline zero bias monitoring tool (dq_calo)
ASCII files with data quality information
including bad cells list (mean energy Elt -2.0 or
gt 2.5 GeV)
cal_corr_dst/KillBuggyCells package
Thumbnails re-reconstruction
Allows also to provide good CALO run-list
3
JETS RESULTS

• MHT30_3CJT5 trigger stream
• L1 at least 3 calorimeter trigger towers with
  ETgt5 GeV.
• L2 Require jet MHTgt20.
• L3 Vector Ht sum gt30 GeV
• trigger List v12.10
• runs 178096 178991
• p14.03.01
• 453 471 events
• JCCB jets
• in average 2 6 bad cells killed per run and
  0 2 of them are hot (with large
  occupancy).

4
PT distribution before and after (the jets
quality criteria are not applied)
!
5
Reducing influence of Noise T42

• T42 reject ALL isolated cells below 4 sigmas
  (and ALL negative energy cells)
• Select high signal cells (4 sigmas)
• Keep their significant neighbours (2-4 sigmas)
• ? Thresholds 2? is 2.5? at the moment ? T42.5

Full description is available in DØNotes 4124,
4146

Available in D0Reco in shadow mode Not running
yet in killing mode We wanted to have first a
tmbfix w/o T42 Lets go for it Now!
6
T42 on Missing and Scalar ET
WZ skim , p13.06 , W? e nu selection (ET gt 20
GeV, MET gt 25 GeV) Compared to Pythia MC
No T42
After T42
7
Run Selection with T42
Define the average shift MET-xy sqrt
(ltMET-xgt)2 (ltMET-ygt)2
RMS-xy sqrt ( RMS-x )2 ( RMS-y )2 To
declare a RUN GOOD 1) Require
MET-xy lt 6 GeV in all files of a run,
and MET-xy lt 4 GeV
in average 2) Require RMS-xy lt 18
GeV in all files of a run and
RMS-xy lt 16 GeV in average 3) Require
scalar ET gt 70 GeV in all files of a run

and scalar ET gt 80 GeV Compare Run
selection with and without T42 on 55
pb-1 of p14.03 data
8
Shift in x,y of Missing ET
Met-xy Shift P14.03.02 Met-xy Shift same
data With T42 One entry 1 file or 20 lumi blocks
9
xy-shift in Missing ET, xy-rms
P14.03 Jul-Aug 2003 one entry / good
file (about 20 lumi blocks) Same p14.03
files but processed with T42
10
Scalar ET evolution with Lumi
Scalar ET P14.03.02 Scalar ET With T42
T42 is cleaner
11
Scalar and Missing ET (setb,metb)
P14.03 Jul-Aug 2003 one entry / good
file (about 20 lumi blocks) Same p14.03
files but processed with T42 SET reduced
by 21 GeV MET unchanged !
12
Run Selection Results
Preliminary run selection performed on p14
data With and without T42 ? T42 looks
better 55 pb-1 recoed / 49 pb-1 good runs
available in july-august i.e. 89 of the
data After T42 55 pb-1 recoed / 50 pb-1
good runs 91 of the data and
gain is higher if tightening the selection. .
13
Jets properties before and after T42
Top groups alljets skim (reco version
p13.06.01) Passes the 4JT10 trigger.
At least 4 jets (JCCB). HT gt 100 GeV
(just plain sum of uncorrected JCCB jets).
20000 events
Jets are JES corrected. No quality cuts applied.
Jet multiplicity lowered by 0.5 jets /event
Fake jets removed
t42 no t42

p13
14
More on Jet-id / Fake Jets

• Why do we need Jet-id ?
• Because there are noise/fake jets
• What are the Noise/Fake jets ?
• Noise jets (partly cured by on-line/off-line
  Data quality corrections)
• Fake jets can also be overcalibrated jets
  (either by picking up noise, or in difficult
  regions like ICR)
• What are the handles we have ?
• Precision readout ? estimators like EMF, F90
• L1 information ? allows confirmation (in p14)
• Tracking ? also better in p14
• CPS ? in p14.05
• T42 (as a byproduct) ? in TMB-fix

15
Jet-ID Definitions
JID 0.05ltEMFlt0.95, HOTFlt10, CHFlt0.4,
N90gt1 JID-f90 JID and ( if f90 lt 0.5 or
CHF lt 0.15 ) L1 JID and ((CC or EC)
and L1SET/pT gt0.2 or ICD and
L1SET/pT gt0.1) Track JID and Sum tracks in
0.5-cone pT / jet pT gt 0.05 L1/Track L1 in CC
and EC, Track in ICD L1Track L1/Track
Track in CC Good jets JID (L1 or Track
confirmation)
Bad jets JID but no L1 and no Track
Rest which includes p14 good
jets (JID-f90)
16
Number of bad/good Jets in 50k dijet sample
all erem hotf emfgt emflt n90 JID f90
L1 L1T L1/T or L1t Track coml
comt 6544 6535 6533 6488 6480 6479 6347 4438
4224 3290 3839 4166 4034 3674 4052 3862 2797
2790 2789 2753 2731 2730 2725 2552 1896 1516 1789
1882 1830 1659 1860 1794 188 187 186
177 175 175 151 97 103 79 94
99 100 90 98 95 95
93 93 89 83 83 82 78
54 39 49 53 52 46 53
51 1138 1111 1110 1102 1085 1085 1063 1007
1058 953 1019 1043 1055 958 1043 1040 1296
1239 1239 1233 1222 1222 1212 1184 1203 1086 1166
1198 1202 1093 1197 1196
dijet_GRL djT42GRL
Bad Jets
dijet_GRL diT42GRL
Bad Jets
dijet_GRL djT42GRL
Good Jets
black bad jets from high jet multiplicity green
bad third jet in dijet event
blue good dijet events GRL good run list
applied
17
Efficiencies for bad/good Jets in 50k dijet
sample
all erem hotf emfgt emflt n90 JID f90
L1 L1T L1/T or L1t Track coml comt
100 99.9 99.8 99.1 99 99 97
67.8 64.5 50.3 58.7 63.7 61.6 56.1 61.9
59 100 99.7 99.7 98.4 97.6 97.6 97.4
91.2 67.8 54.2 64 67.3 65.4 59.3 66.5
64.1 100 99.5 98.9 94.1 93.1 93.1
80.3 51.6 54.8 42 50 52.7 53.2 47.9
52.1 50.5 100 97.9 97.9 93.7 87.4 87.4
86.3 82.1 56.8 41.1 51.6 55.8 54.7 48.4
55.8 53.7 100 97.6 97.5 96.8 95.3
95.3 93.4 88.5 93.0 83.7 89.5 91.7 92.7
84.2 91.7 91.4 100 95.6 95.6 95.1 94.3
94.3 93.5 91.4 92.8 83.8 90 92.4 92.7
84.3 92.4 92.3
dijet_GRL djT42GRL
Bad Jets
dijet_GRL diT42GRL
Bad Jets
dijet_GRL djT42GRL
good Jets
black bad jets from high jet multiplicity green
bad third jet in dijet event
blue good dijet events
18
Conclusions on jet-id / fakenoise jets

• Some properties of the noise jets
• low pT, sit mainly in the ICD and CH
• fake high met, large HT and high jet Multiplicity
• ? the noise is found where we look for
  interesting physics
• In p13 LP03 sample only 45 highest ET towers
• ? lower efficiency to find L1 confirmed jets!
• T42
• Significant reduction of bad jets due to
  noise
• ?
• Use T42 and Use L1 confirmation for Jet-id.
• Use Tracks to monitor jet-id efficiencies

19
T42 Reconstruction efficiency in MC (qcd pT20)
Method match particle jets to calorimeter jets
with ?R? 0.5 reco efficiency in pt bins
particle jets found in calo / all particle jets

• ? Efficiency lower with t42 when pTjet ? 8 GeV.
• Gain a lot of efficiency by lowering the
  threshold to 6 GeV
• What about noise jets with this new threshold ?

20
T42 Reconstruction efficiency in DATA
New low pT good jets (reco efficiency higher).
New jets found with t42, pTjet ? 6 GeV in
second bump may also be low pT good jets. Even
if they are fake, situation better than in the
not42, pTjet ? 8 GeV case.
21
Jet Energy loss with T42
Data (alljets skim - top group)
735 MeV difference for the same jet ?
need new JES correction
MC (single top events)
? T42 cuts mostly noise but also a bit of real
energy
22
Jet Energy resolution with T42 in MC (qcd pT20)
Method match particle jets to calorimeter jets
with ?R? 0.5 ? ?E / E (E particle jets E cal
jets ) / E particle jet distribution in pT
bins Fit with a gaussian in each pT bin.
23
T42 Results on Jet Resolution (MC)
No T42 T42

• T42 resolution better at low energy
• better fit with T42

24
T42 on high energy electrons
Estimators for EM candidates in data, when pTgt13
GeV
OK !
25
no T42 Z ? ee with T42
Similar results with or w.o. T42. Slightly
better results with T42
26
Effect on low Energy Electrons selected with the
Road Method

• Use all available p13.06.01 data.
• J/? selection criteria
• pairs of road electron candidates with opposite
  charge,
• ? lt 1.1 and pT gt 4 GeV for each electron
  candidate
• pT asymmetry
• where pT,1 and pT,2 are the transverse
  momenta of the two electron candidates,
• pT gt 12 GeV for J/? candidate.

• Small gain ( 0.1 ) at low energy
  (improvement limited by the number of isolated
  tracks )

27
Effect of T42 on Soft Electrons
no T42
286 /- 17 J/Psi

• Slightly more J/Psi
• Better Soft Electron Tag efficiency (not shown)

290 - 17 J/Psi
?TighSoftEl 88?2 no T42 ? 92?2 with T42
T42
Is there a Fake rate issue at low Energy ?
28
T42 on EM objects at low energy
estimators pTlt13 GeV
Fake rate increases below 6 GeV Tuning of
estimator cuts needed If track-match required
? No big diff. for Ee gt 6 GeV
29
Fake Rate at 20 and 15 GeV from MW
T42 vs. no-T42
20 GeV
fake
15 GeV
30
T42tmb-fixed W? e nu sample

• Em-id
• Em Fraction gt 0.90
• Isolation lt 0.15
• Em HM8 lt 20
• ? lt 1.1, In Fiducial vol.
• pTe gt 20 GeV
• MET gt 25 GeV

P13

• Standard Jets Criteria
• Em Fraction lt 0.95
• HOTF lt 10
• f90 lt 0.5 or CHflt0.15
• ? lt 2.5
• PT gt 15 GeV

P13 with TMB fix and T42
(left loose elec.sel. right tight elec. sel.)
31
Missing ET , W Transverse Mass
P13
P13 with TMB fix and T42
32
Eta of Leading Jet
P13 (left loose elec. sel. right tight elec.
sel.)
33
ICD
Preamps used in readout 10 pF feedback capacitor
rather than the usual 5 pF found at these
layers. Increase weight by 10.5/5.5
(actually 1.95)
CC MG layer
EC MH layers
ICD response highered by factor 3.8 CCMG and EC
FH were highered twice ? BUG
34
Leading Jet Eta (e.m.MET)
MG bug ICR x 3.8
No MG bug ICR x 3.8
Horns at Eta /- 1.2 ? MG bug ICR
boost Smaller (and more central) w/o MG bug No
Horns in p13 situation.
No MG bug ICR x 1.0
35
ICD-MG Expert Comitee

• Composition
• Andy White (chair), Leslie Groer,Bob Kehoe,Ia
  Iashvili, Vivian O'Dell, Lee Sawyer, Dean
  Schamberger, Jan Stark, Alan Stone ,Vishnu
  Zutshi, Gregorio Bernardi (ex officio), Robert
  Zitoun (ex officio)
• Charge of the comittee
• A) Review the harware motivations for having
  scaled up by a factor 3.8
• the ICD response, and by a factor of 2 some
  of the MG, and report it in a
• short document to the CALGO steering group
  (CAT) and algorithms chair.
• The Jet energy scale and resolution issues
  are studied separately, inside
• JESCALGO.
• B) Propose a complete calibration strategy
  (on-line,off-line) for the ICD,
• including its phi intercalibration.
• Be in charge of providing updates of the
  ICD/MG numbers if necessary.

36
ICD-MG Comitee Recomendations

•  
• 1)      The ICD ADC to GeV conversion factor
  should stay at its present value 0.0000945
  GeV/ADC count.
• 2)      The factor of 3.8 should not be used. For
  the Winter conferences we should adopt the
  conservative approach of using the ICD signals
  without a boost factor.
• 3)      More studies of the required ICD boost
  factor should be carried out as soon as possible
  and the best factor determined and then used in
  energy correction.
• 4) The channel to channel relative calibration
  for the ICD should be tested and implemented as
  soon as possible.

37
P13 vs P13-fix/after MG-bug corrected
Ready to look at finer details
MC T42 vs. no-T42
T42
38
Summary

• CALGO group would like to have a full new round
  of TMBfixing, for having
• 1) more efficient HC killing
• 2) ICR restored to the p13 status
• 3) T42 which will bring an overall improvement
  of calorimetric response.
• Detecting muons in the calo with T42 implemented
  can be solved simply.
• Other low energy issues can be tested in the next
  days if needed.

39
Comparison on a subset of All-jets skim
ltpTjet gt 28 GeV, (same events)
chf gt 0.15 f90 gt 0.5
Rejected by the p14 cut
The number of jets rejected is the same with
both cuts within 5 About 10 of the jets are
not classified as good jets with this cut in
data With the new cut the rejection is stronger
in the (eta 1) ICR region, where noise is the
most important, and its less important in the
central region. Some good ICR jets are rejected
by this cut (but also by the old cut)