# Presentation: 184422

## Calorimeter Algorithms

** ****A few remarks on the calo. problems **
** ****Overview of the CAT force results **
** ****From CAT to CALGO**
** ****Results of the CALGO workshop **
** ****The road ahead**

**Gregorio Bernardi  for the**
**CALGO and CAT  groups**

## DISCLAIMER

**Different more or less important problems affect ****	****the calorimeter **
**However:**
**The calorimeter data are “waiting” for other subdetector data improvements in order to go to publication: **
**The Reprocessing is NEEDED mainly to improve the Tracking**
**The Calorimeter “fixing”  can be done and redone and redone from the TMB’s  in a few days. **
**personal opinion: From the analysis point of view the fake jets problem is, for the moment, our main problem in the calorimeter. **

##      D0 Calorimeter Algorithms Task Force   

**      **
**Members of the Task Force****           (MAY –JULY 2003)**
**Gregorio Bernardi**** ****(chair), Jonathan Hays, Serban Protopopescu, **
**Markus Klute, Jan Stark, Robert Zitoun, Vishnu Zutshi**
**+ Emmanuel Busato, Jean-Roch Vlimant**
**Charge to the Task Force:**
** **
**The task force will optimize in collaboration with the Physics and**
**ID-groups the calorimeter algorithms for precision physics.**** It will**
**start from the achievements of the Calorimeter Task Force, continue**
**to improve the algorithms and propagate them to the physics objects **
**using as benchmarks the comparison data/simulation of the W (->e nu) **
**transverse mass spectrum and Jet & Met resolutions in di-jet events. **
**The task force is expected to coordinate the efforts in the different**
**groups related to the calorimeter.**
** **

##                                  Specifically, the task force should: 

**1) ****Make progress on the understanding****/correction**** of the calorimeter noise.**
**2) Finalize the development of an optimized 0-suppression scheme and study**
**   ****its consequences for MET, EM, Tau and Jet ID.**
**3) Make progress on the understanding of the EM response/resolution, using **
**   ****on-line and off-line tools.**
**4) Make progress on the data/mc agreement of the calo objec****t **
**   ****reconstruction  and of the energy flow algorithm.**
**5) Use large statistics of W and di-jets events to display how the **
**   ****progress achieved on points 1-4 propagates in the corresponding**
**   ****physics distributions.**

## Correcting the DATA

**Many problems are not discovered immediately online.**
**  ****- BLS electronics problems**
**  ****- cable swaps**
**  ****- not all hot cells are caught online**
******  ****Large datasets on tape with some quality issues****.**
**	****These data  sometimes suffer from ****isolated problems****. Can fix these**
**	****isolated problems and ****use the data for publication**** quality analyses.**
**	****But: need mechanisms to do this.**
****** ****cal_corr_dst**** package**
**	****Takes raw calorimeter data and fixes known problems**
******  ****included in reprocessing**
**	****Can also be included in user analysis jobs **
**        ****	****(because we have the individual cell energies in the thumbnail).**
**	****Requires some effort as calorimeter reconstruction needs to be rerun.**
**	**
**CAT MODEL HAS BEEN TAKEN ON BOARD BY COMMON SAMPLE GROUP**
**                ****C. S. group now centrally fixes the TMBs (while we are waiting for the ****	****	****result of the p14 reprocessing).**

## DQ Issues Addressed in Current Version of cal_corr_dst

**DQ Issues Addressed in ****Current Version of cal_corr_dst**

** ****Energy sharing problem**
**     ****Draft D0 note:**
**     **_[http://www-clued0.](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/esp_note.ps)__[fnal](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/esp_note.ps)__[.](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/esp_note.ps)__[gov](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/esp_note.ps)__[/~stark/](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/esp_note.ps)__[esp](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/esp_note.ps)__[_note.](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/esp_note.ps)__[ps](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/esp_note.ps)_
** ****Tower two problem**
**     ****Draft D0 note:**
**     **_[http://www-clued0.](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/tower2/note.ps)__[fnal](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/tower2/note.ps)__[.](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/tower2/note.ps)__[gov](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/tower2/note.ps)__[/~stark/tower2/note.](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/tower2/note.ps)__[ps](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/tower2/note.ps)_
** ****BLS cable swap**
**     ****next slide**
**Short term project:**
**  ****kill hot cells found by dq_calo **

**Web page with latest version of cal_corr_dst:**
**       **_[http://www-clued0.](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/cal_corr_on_tmb.txt)__[fnal](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/cal_corr_on_tmb.txt)__[.](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/cal_corr_on_tmb.txt)__[gov](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/cal_corr_on_tmb.txt)__[/~stark/cal_](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/cal_corr_on_tmb.txt)__[corr](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/cal_corr_on_tmb.txt)__[_on_](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/cal_corr_on_tmb.txt)__[tmb](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/cal_corr_on_tmb.txt)__[.txt](http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~stark/cal_corr_on_tmb.txt)_

## Most recent addition to cal_corr_dst

- J. Gardner

**Correction for BLS cable swap:**
**The “discovery” of the  swap was triggered by an analysis plot**
******/******** distribution of all EM candidates:**
**  ****p****T**** > 25 GeV**
**  ****EM fraction > 0.9**
**  ****isolation < 0.15**
**  ****HMx8 < 20**
**pink boxes: tower two problem**
**blue boxes: energy sharing problem**
**red boxes: don’t know yet...**
**Nice example of constructive feed-back **
**from analysis.**

**Donuts ? Cable swaps !**

## Reducing influence of Noise: T42T42:   reject ALL isolated  cells below 4 sigmas (and ALL negative energy cells)  

**Select high signal cells (4 sigma)**
**Keep their significant neighbours (2 sigma)**
******Thresholds 2******** is 2.5******** at the moment  ******** T42.5**

**Available in D0Reco in shadow mode**
**Not running yet: **
**We wants to have first a tmbfix           w/o T42**

**Full description is available in D****Ø****Notes 4124, 4146**

## T42 on  high energy electrons

**T42 on  high energy electrons**

**Estimators for EM candidates in data, when pT>13 GeV**

**OK !**

## T42 on Missing and Scalar ET

**WZ skim , p13.06 , W******** e nu selection (E****T ****> 20 GeV, MET > 25 GeV)**
**Compared to Pythia MC**

**No T42**

**After T42**

## Jets properties before and after T42

**Top group’s alljets skim (reco version p13.06.01) : **
**  ****	****  ***** Passes the 4JT10 trigger. **
**	****   ***** At least 4 jets (JCCB). **
**	****   ***** HT > 100 GeV (just plain sum of uncorrected JCCB jets). **
**                      **** ******** ****20000 events**

**Jets are JES corrected.**
**No quality cuts applied because jet id distributions change significantly. **

**                    ****t42****                    ****no t42****  ****      **** **

**Jets properties ****before**** and ****after**** T42**

##  New Jet Seeding in p14

**- mostly low pT                **
**- in ICR**
**- large number  of  proto-jets merging**

**Jets not found  with                    new seeding:**

**Jets found in                                                                  both cases:**

**about 3-4% less jets**
**with new seeding**
** **

**Remove CH and MG cell energies from the seed **
**tower energy before starting preclustering           **
**(i.e., a p13 seed might have an energy < 500 MeV**
**in p14)**

** ****New Jet Seeding in p14**

## JET – ID:  Plans for the future 

**High priority task ****remains**** reduction of fake jets**
**	****	****Are T****42****, new jet seeding, hardware fixes ****	****enough ?**
** ****J****et ID cuts****   ******** new certification**** **
**	****	****Use ****L1 con****fi****rmation ****?**
** ****Tuning of Jet**** ****ID criteria for ICD region. **
** ****T****uning of merging algorithm**** ?**** **
** ****Consider lowering jet pt threshold**** **
**	****	****6 GeV  (to make analysis at  10 - 12 GeV)**
** **

## MET subgroup Goals

**MET Resolution: related to Jes, T42 ...**
**Treatment of non reconstructed jets**
**Overall correction strategy of MET**
****** ****Decides how to correct EM/Jets etc..**
**Understanding of unclustered energy **
**- ****	****in QCD processes**
**-  in EW events**** **

## CALGO: Activities & Structure

**CALOP - calo **
**hardware & operations**
**R. Zitoun**

**cal/icd-**softw.
**Jan Stark/Lee Sawyer**

**cps-**software         **A. Magerkurth/D.Alton**

**fps-**software
**A. Patwa/A. Turcot **

**em-id           ****Harald Fox, Jan Stark**

**tau-id**
**Dhiman Chakraborty / Serban Protopopescu**

**met**
**Patrice Verdier,   Sophie Trincaz**

**jes**
**Ia Iashvili/**
**Nirmalya Parua**

******-id**** **
**Yurii Maravin         Drew Alton**

**jet-id**
**Slava Kulik **
**Alexander Kupco**

**l3cal-**software

**cal-simulation**
**Leslie Groer, Michel Jaffre’**** **

**CAT**

**eflow**
**Anna Goussiou**
**Jon Hays**

**hardware**

**data taking **

**slow control**

**trigger L1/L2**

**icd**

**CALGO - calorimeter algorithms & objects**
**U.Bassler/ G. Bernardi**

** ****calib – online**

** ****cal – dq  **
**Slava Shary,        Jan  Stark**

## Welcome/Goals of the Workshop (15')                     U. Bassler/G. BernardiShutdown Status/Operation Organization 	      R. ZitounData Quality 	    				     V. Shary/J. Stark  	Overview 				     J. Stark  	zero-bias monitoring & bad cell correction  V. SharyLevel 3 (20')     					      V. BuescherSimulation Status and Prospects    		      L. GroerTau-id     				 D. Chakraborty/S. Protopopescu Jet-id 		    			                      S. Kulik/A. Kupco  	jet-id status and plans     		        S. Kulik  	jet reconstruction and simulation 	         V. Zutshi  	Jet and Met while studying Wbb production  G. BernardiMissing ET (30')    				        S. Trincaz/P. Verdier  	MET status (15')    			        P. Verdier  	cal_t42 status (15') 			       J.R. Vlimant

**CALORIMETER WORKSHOP contributions**

## Jet Energy Scale 	   			        I. Iashvili/N. Parua

**Jet Energy Scale ****	****   ****	****	****	****        ****I. Iashvili/N. Parua**
**  ****	****JES status and plans   ****	****	****	****        ****I.Iashili**
**  ****	****Response measurement for b-jets ****	**** ****       ****T.Kurca**
**  ****	****Showering measurement with MC method    **** ****J.Rani**
**E****nergy Flow (30')    ****	****	****	****	****       **** A. Goussiou/J. Hays**
**electron-id/calibration ****	****	****    ****	****	****          ****H. Fox/J. Stark**
**  ****	****Introduction ****	****	****	****	****         **** H. Fox/J. Stark**
**  ****	****EM reconstruction packages ****	****	****         **** S. Crépé-Renaudin**
**  ****	****H-matrix, data/MC agreement ****	****	****         **** M. Jaffré/T. Vu Anh**
**  ****	****Electron likelihood (****2*)**** ****	****	****          ****J. Kozminski****, ****S.-J. Park**
**  ****	****EM scale corrections (10')   ****	****	****          ****S. Kermiche**
**photon-id ****	****   ****	****	****	****                        ****D. Alton/Y. Maravin**
**             ****FPS software     ****	****	****	****                        ****J. Lazaflores/A.Patwa**
**             ****CPS Status****	****    ****	****	****	****           D.**** Alton**

## Jet Energy Scale

** ****Offset (p13.06 data, p13.08 MC)**
**Response (p13.06 data, p13.08 MC)**
**New ICR correction (p13.06 data, p13.08 MC)**
**same as previous correction in data (~25%), smaller in MC (11% ******** 6.5%)**

**Special Min Bias runs**

**Pythia UE + 0.8 minbias**

## Offset
Luminosity dependence OK
Response
Increased statistics: 15  55 pb-1
EM scale included 
Systematics: background, topology, vertex
MC used for extrapolation at high energies
Total
in central region:   9.5%  5.5%

**Luminosity dependence OK**
**Response**
**Increased statistics: 15 ******** 55 pb****-1**
**EM scale included **
**Systematics: background, topology, vertex**
**MC used for extrapolation at high energies**
**Total**
**in central region:   ****9.5% ******** 5.5%**

**JES: Smaller Uncertainty**

**|η|=0.0**

## Response: b-jets vs q-jets  (MPF method)

## Jet Resolutions

**Jet Resolutions**

**Resolution at  *****E******T*****~50 GeV**
**Run I****	****	****11.6%**
**Run II****	****	****14% (data/MC)**
**More to Understand !**
**Z ****→ *****bb*****  resolution**
**various algorithms**** (p13.08, uncor.)**
**	****R****cone****= 0.5****	****18.1%**
**	****R****cone****= 0.7****	****17.5%**
**	****0.4 *****k******T*****	****	****18.3%**
**	****1.0 *****k******T*****	****	****17.7%**
**R****cone****=0.5**
**	****before correction****	****18.1%**
**	****after JES correction****	****17.0%            ****Use Tracks+clusters?**

## JCCA cone jets have no energy correction applied

**JCCA cone jets have no energy correction applied**
**CellNN calibrated using linear fit to response measured using single charged pion Monte-Carlo.**
**Potential significant improvement: need to calibrate tracks/objects on data. Here results z********qq MC with p13**

## Electron identification

**calorimeter cells**

**clusters**

**electron candidates**

**electron candidates**
**for analysis**

**The whole chain needs to be ****certified****.**
**Quite some ****Monte Carlo dependence****: geometric corrections, training of H-matrix, analysis, ...**

**sophisticated discriminants:**
**H-matrix, likelihood**

**cone, cellNN**

**C/FPS clusters**

**tracks**
**possibly with dE/dx**

**calibration**
**  ****- geometric corrections**
**  ****- EM scale corrections**
**  ****- phi cracks**

_**For low-p**__**T**__** non-isolated**_
_**electrons: road method.**_
**Start from tracks, look at**
**energy deposits in a **
**narrow *****road***** around the**
**track extrapolated through **
**the calorimeter; see if these**
**deposits are EM-like.**

## Low-pT di-EM triggers in trigger list v12.x

**Low-p****T**** di-EM triggers in trigger list v12.x**

- 7.6 pb-1

**Fit result (signal parameters):**
**N (one tight) = 614 +/- 113**
**Mass****	****= 3.040 +/- 0.005**
** ****	****= 0.071 +/- 0.005**
**a****	****= 0.61 +/- 0.12**
**n ****	****= 1.7 +/- 1.1**

**Reconstructed using road method.**

**Trigger list v12 contains a new low p****T**** di-EM trigger.**
**       ******** ****useful data samples for EM validation studies**
**Summary of the selection criteria used by this trigger:**
**	****L1:****	****CEM(2,3.) CEM(1,6.) TTK(2,3.) TTK(1,5.)**
**	****L2:****	****|********| restriction to central region**
**	****L3:****	****two road electrons ( > 3 GeV and > 5 GeV, one tight one loose)**

## Data: J/,   e+ e- using EM clusters

**N (J/Psi)       ****	****= 152 +/- 15**
**Mass (J/Psi) ****	****= 3.166 +/- 0.040 GeV**
**Resolution (J/Psi)****	****= 0.382 +/- 0.043 GeV**
**N (Upsilon)****	****= 70 +/- 18**
**Mass (Upsilon)****	****= 10.31 +/- 0.18 GeV**
**Resolution (Ups) ****	****= 0.584 +/- 0.144 GeV**

**Fit results (signal parameters):**

**N (J/Psi)       ****	****= 82 +/- 9**
**Mass (J/Psi) ****	****= 3.166 +/- 0.040 GeV**
**Resolution (J/Psi)****	****= 0.305 +/- 0.037 GeV**
**N (Upsilon)****	****= 55 +/- 13**
**Mass (Upsilon)****	****= 10.12 +/- 0.17 GeV**
**Resolution (Ups) ****	****= 0.689 +/- 0.190 GeV**

- HMx8 < 50

- HMx8 < 20

** ****comparison of fitted yields gives information on HMx cut efficiency****.**

## Calibration at low Energy

**To investigate the high ******** mass****, take the**
**HMx8 < 20 sample and compare the mass**
**distributions obtained from clusters and tracks for the same events.**
** ****mass obtained from tracks appears to be**
**more reasonable, but need to check resolutions with ******** Monte Carlo.**

|  |  yield |  Mass (GeV) | resolution (GeV) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| clusters | 55 +/ 13 | 10.12 +/- 0.17 | 0.69 +/- 0.19 |
| tracks | 68 +/- 11 | 9.43 +/- 0.11 | 0.62 +/- 0.10 |

**Potential calibration Improvement**

## Electron Resolution

**From Monte-Carlo with corrections**
***   ******S***** = (0.199 ± 0.008)%     *****N***** = (****0.42 ****± 0.08) GeV     *****C***** = (****0.0076 ****± 0.0014)%**
**MC momentum resolution 3% @ 50 GeV**
** ****expect:****	****	****	****  Z mass resolution 2%****Z MC 2.2%**
**   ****Data  4.0% ******** 3.1 %**

## Various Corrections

**Corrections in D0reco + emcandidate**
**Further**
**calibration**
**corrections**
**Other trials**

|  | MZ/GeV | Z/GeV | Z/MZ(%) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| raw ADC | 81.5 | 3.6 | 4.4 |
| non linearity | 86.7 | 3.7 | 4.3 |
| gain correction | 86.6 | 3.6 | 4.2 |
| crate equalization | 86.5 | 3.6 | 4.1 |
| geometric correction | 90.2 | 3.6 | 4.0 ± 0.1 |

| calibration timing | 90.2 | 3.6 | 4.0 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| physics timing | 90.2 | 3.6 | 3.9 |
| calib/phys amplitude | 90.0 | 3.4 | 3.8 |

| after tuning weights | 90.4 | 3.3 | 3.7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| use 2 calweights | 90.4 | 3.3 | 3.7 |
| pulser amplitudes | 90.2 | 3.4 | 3.8 |
| 10  slices | 90.4 | 3.3 | 3.7 |

## Module Boundaries (Phi) ?

**CC has 32 modules with ********=0.2**
**loss of clusters (?)**
**loss of energy **
**Broader effect on mass **

|  | MZ/GeV | Z/GeV | Z/MZ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| All | 90.4 | 3.3 | 3.7 |
| ||>0.05 | 91.3 | 2.8 | 3.1 |
| ||<0.05 | 89.6 | 3.2 | 3.6 |

**Broader effect on mass**
**Origin ? Statistics ?**

## Dead Material Simulation

**Modeling of the phi cracks (electric fields and charge collection)**
**Modeling of the dead-material**
**Modeling of preamp charge collection signal**** **
**Improvement done for solenoid**
**Improving the material map for the  SMT cables, infrastructure, cooling...**

## EM ID   estimators: data vs MC

**p14.03.00 data and MC**
**EM ID v4.1**
**2 good electrons, pT > 20 GeV, |********_det| < 2.5, not within cracks, Mee > 50 GeV**
**At least 1 track match in data**
**Many distributions are ok**
**pT, isolation, transverse shower shapes in r-phi, EMfractions, HMx41 CC**
**Discrepancies in a few       (MC normally narrower)**
**HMx8 components:**
**#2 (~ logE and ********z****) and #4 (********z****)**
**Number cells in lower layers CC**
**CC profile/shower shape in ******** and R**
**                   ****HMx6 ?**

**EM CC Cluster widths in r-phi**

**EM CC Cluster widths in z**

**Notes:**
EM CC Cluster widths in r-phi look pretty good but not well modeled for z in the first two layers
Looks OK in EC

## CPS

**Spatial resolution**** **
**Resolution in ******** of 1.58 mr (MC 1.5 mr)**
**Resolution in z of 3.2 mm(MC 2.5 mm)**

- E/E

**MC study: energy resolution**** ****Green shows the improvement using the CPS.**

## Progress on Photon ID

**Currently, a photon is an electron with no matched central track,  Why is this not good?**
**HMatrix does not work well for electrons, not easy to make it  work for photons**
**NEW TOOLS UNDER STUDY:**
**Tracks  **
**Matching tracks to CPS-EM objects**
**Isolation**
**Hit counting**
**Use both CFT and SMT**
**PS**
**Matching to EM/TRK**
**Shapes of clusters, ****************separation?**
**HMx**
**Check if electron HMx works well enough on photons**
**Train it on a sample of ******

## TRK-CPS-EM matching

**TRK-CPS-EM matching**

**From a sample of good Z********ee candidates**
**Require exactly two good EM objects**
**Match them with CPS clusters:**
** ****3d floor method:**
**Match CPS and EM (3d floor)           in  (********, ********) space**
** ********2**** method:**
**Use all floors**
**Fit to a straight line**

**Wrong cluster**

**Good cluster**

## Priority Tasks	

** ****Em-energy resolutions (electrons, photons)**
** ****Data/simulation agreement: shower shapes, cracks**
** ****Data quality strategy (on-line/off-line)**
** ****Noise understanding / Fake Jets /  T42 integration**
** ****J.E.S. / hadronic energy resolution**
** ****Calorimeter compensation studies (E-Flow)**
** ********-id**

## Future dates

** ****CALGO meetings devoted to specific projects:**
**	****October 21****st****: met corrections,  DQ ****	****October 28****th****: em-resolution / simulation   ...**
** ****p14 certification of calorimeter software and ****	****objects: November 21****st  ****(JES: Nov. 28****th****)**
**	****	****god-parenting by CAT**
** ****Next calorimeter workshop: December 2****nd****/3****rd****   ****	****	****	****	****	****	****	****    or 3****rd****/4****th**
**       **

## Backup slides

## MET Run Selection            

**MET Run Selection            **

**Using METB   (no CH, except ****	****in good JCCB jets)**
**Pretty stable with time (*****METxy***** most sensitive)**
**Good run selection based on**
*** ***
** ****rms(*****MET******xy*****)**
**<*****SET*****>**
**91% good runs  (feb-jun 2003) **
**could be lower with tighter cuts**
**could be higher with software  corrections**
**MUST be update for p14**
**                             ****for TMBfixed data**

- Only good runs

## TRK-CPS / TRK-CPS-EM matching

**Require exactly two CPS-EM objects**
**Propagate track to the middle of CPS **
**Calibrate track propagation **
**Check TRK-CPS relative alignment**
**Select the closest track in (z, ********) space**
**In the Z********ee sample:**
**TRK-EM (**traditional**) matching probability is 84 ****± 2%**** (AA)**
**TRK-CPS-EM matching probability is**
**floor method: ****95.8 ± 1.1% **
** ********2**** method: ****92.8 ****± 1.3%**
**Fake rate estimation is in progress**

## JES: b-quarks & parton-level

**JES: b-quarks & parton-level**

**b ******** μν + X**

**b ******** c ******** μν + X**

**New semi-leptonic correction for b-jets (p13.08 MC)**
**Added dependence on parent quark  (in addition to E****mu****, pt****rel****, E****bjet**
**	****	****	****	****	****	****	**
**	****	****	****	****	****	****	**
**	****	****	****	****	****	****	****Parton-level**
**	****	****	****	****	****	****	****Correction:**
**	****	****	****	****	****	****	****light q**
**	****	****	****	****	****	****	****b-q**