# Presentation: 805869

## 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**

## DQ_Calo Hot Cell Killer 

- Offline zero bias monitoring tool (dq_calo)

- ASCII files with data quality information including
- bad cells list (mean energy E< -2.0 *or* > 2.5 GeV)

- cal_corr_dst/KillBuggyCells package

- Thumbnails re-reconstruction

**Allows also to provide good CALO run-list**

## JETS RESULTS

**MHT30_3CJT5 trigger stream**
**L1: at least 3 calorimeter trigger towers with E****T****>5 GeV. **
**L2: Require jet MHT>20. **
**L3: Vector Ht sum >30 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).**** **

## PT distribution before and after (the jets quality criteria are not applied)

- !

## Reducing influence of Noise: T42

**T42:   ****re****ject**** ****ALL i****solated **** ****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 D****Ø****Notes 4124, 4146**

**Available in D0Reco in shadow mode**
**Not running yet in killing mode: **
**We wanted to have first a tmbfix           w/o T42**
**Let’s go for it Now!**

## 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**

##   Run Selection with T42

**Define the average shift:**** **
**     ****MET-xy = sqrt [ (<MET-x>)****2**** +(<MET-y>)****2****]                          RMS-xy = sqrt [ ( RMS-x )****2****   +  ( RMS-y )****2  ****]**** **
**To declare a  RUN  ****“GOOD”:**
**1) Require ****            ****MET-xy <   6  GeV in all files of a run,                                 ****	****	****  ****and MET-xy <   4 GeV in average**** **
**2) Require             ****RMS-xy < 18  GeV in all files of a run****	****	****	****            ****and  RMS-xy < 16  GeV in average**
**3) Require             ****scalar E****T****  > 70 GeV in all files of a run****  ****                                         ****	****           and  scalar E****T **** > 80 GeV**
**    ****Compare Run selection with and without T42       ****	****	****	****   on 55 pb****-1 **** of p14.03 data**

## 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**

**Shift in x,y of Missing E****T**

## 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**

**xy-shift in Missing E****T****,  xy-rms**

## Scalar ET  evolution with Lumi

**Scalar E****T**
**P14.03.02**
**Scalar E****T**
**With T42**

**T42 is “cleaner”**

**Scalar E****T **** evolution with Lumi**

## 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 !**

## 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.**
**.**** **

## 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. **

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

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

**Fake jets removed**

**p13**

**Jet multiplicity lowered by 0.5 jets /event :**

## 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

**      ****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**

**More on Jet-id / Fake Jets**

## Jet-ID Definitions

_**JID:**_**     0.05<EMF<0.95, HOTF<10, CHF<0.4, N90>1**
_**JID-f90:**_**    JID  and  ( if f90 < 0.5  or  CHF  < 0.15 )**
_**L1:**_**       JID and**
**	****	****  ****	****((CC or EC) and L1SET/pT >0.2**
**	****	****             ****or ICD     and L1SET/pT >0.1)**
_**Track:**_**  JID and Sum tracks**** ****in 0.5-cone pT / jet pT > 0.05**
_**L1/Track:**_**   L1 in CC and EC, Track in ICD**
_**L1+Track:**_**   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)  **

## Number of bad/good  Jets in 50k dijet sample

**all     erem  hotf emf> emf<  n90   JID    f90   L1    L1&T  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: **

**  **
** **
**dijet_GRL: **
**diT42GRL: **

**dijet_GRL:  **
**djT42GRL: **

**black: bad jets from high jet multiplicity**
**green: bad third jet in dijet event**

**blue: good dijet events**
**GRL = good run list applied**

***Bad Jets***

***Bad Jets***

***Good Jets***

## Efficiencies for bad/good  Jets in 50k dijet sample

** **
** **
** ****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**
**  **

**black: bad jets from high jet multiplicity**
**green: bad third jet in dijet event**

**blue: good dijet events**

** **
**dijet_GRL: **
** **
**djT42GRL: **

**  **
** **
**dijet_GRL: **
**diT42GRL: **

**dijet_GRL:  **
**djT42GRL: **

***Bad Jets***

***Bad Jets***

***good Jets***

**Efficiencies for bad/good  Jets in 50k dijet sample**

## Conclusions on jet-id / fake&noise 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**

## T42 Reconstruction efficiency in MC (qcd pT20) 

****** ****Efficiency lower with t42 when pT****jet**** ******** 8 GeV.**
** ****Gain a lot of efficiency by lowering the threshold to 6 GeV**
**	****What about noise jets with this new threshold ?**

**Method : match particle jets to calorimeter jets with ********R******** 0.5**
**	****	**
**reco efficiency in pt bins =  particle jets found in calo / all particle jets**

## T42 Reconstruction efficiency in DATA

**(reco efficiency higher).**

**New jets found with [t42, pT****jet**** ******** 6 GeV] in second bump may **
**also be low pT good jets. Even if they are fake, situation better **
**than in the  [not42, pT****jet**** ******** 8 GeV] case.**

**T42 Reconstruction efficiency in DATA**

##  Jet Energy loss with T42

** ****735 MeV  difference for **
**     ****the same jet**
****** ****need new JES correction**

**Data (****alljets skim - top group****) **

**MC (****single top events****) :**

****** ****T42 cuts mostly noise but also a bit of real energy**

## 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.**

## T42 Results on Jet Resolution (MC)

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

**T42 Results on Jet Resolution (MC)**

**No T42**
**T42**

## T42 on  high energy electrons

**T42 on  high energy electrons**

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

**OK !**

## no T42    Z  ee    with T42

**Similar results with or w.o. T42.**
** ****Slightly better results with T42**

## Effect on low Energy Electrons selected with the Road Method

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

**Use all available p13.06.01 data.**
**J/******** selection criteria****:**
** ****pairs of road electron candidates with opposite charge,**
** ****|********| < 1.1  and *****p*****T**** > 4 GeV for each electron candidate **
*** ******p*****T**** asymmetry**
**         ****where *****p*****T,1**** and *****p*****T,2**** are the transverse momenta of the two electron candidates,**
** *****p*****T**** > 12 GeV for J/******** candidate.**

## Effect of T42 on Soft Electrons

-  T42

- no T42

**290 +- 17 J/Psi**

**286 +/- 17    J/Psi**

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

******TighSoftEl**** : 88********2 % no T42    ******** 92********2 % with T42**

**Is there a Fake rate issue at low Energy ?**

## T42 on EM objects at low energy 

**T42 on EM objects at low energy **

**estimators pT<13 GeV**

**Fake rate increases ****below 6 GeV:**** Tuning of estimator cuts needed**
**If track-match required    ******** **
**No big diff. for E****e ****> 6 GeV**

## Fake Rate at 20 and 15 GeV from MW

**20 GeV**

**15 GeV**

**T42 ****vs.**** ****no-T42**

**fake**

##            T42+“tmb-fixed” W e nu sample

**           ****T42+“tmb-fixed” W******** e nu sample**

**P13**

**P13 with TMB fix and T42**

**  ****Em-id:**
** ****Em Fraction > 0.90**
** ****Isolation < 0.15**
** ****Em HM8 < 20**
** ****|********| < 1.1, In Fiducial vol.**
** ****p****T****e**** > 20 GeV**
**ME****T ****> 25 GeV**

**Standard Jets Criteria:**
** ****Em Fraction < 0.95**
** ****HOTF < 10**
** ****f90 < 0.5 or CHf<0.15****    **
**|********| < 2.5**
** ****P****T**** > 15 GeV**

** ****(left: loose elec.sel.**
**right: tight elec. sel.)**

## Missing ET , W Transverse Mass

**Missing E****T**** , W Transverse Mass**

**P13**

**P13 with TMB fix and T42**

## Eta of Leading Jet

**P13**
** ****(left: loose elec. sel.**
**right: tight  elec. sel.)**

## EC MH layers

**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)**

**EC MH layers**

**CC MG layer**

**ICD**

**ICD response highered by factor 3.8 **
**CCMG and EC FH were  highered twice ******** BUG**

## Leading Jet Eta  (e.m.+MET) 

**MG bug ICR x 3.8   **

**No MG bug ICR x 3.8   **

**No MG bug ICR x 1.0   **

**Horns at Eta +/- 1.2           ******** MG bug +ICR boost**
**Smaller (and more central) w/o MG bug**
**No Horns in p13 situation.**

## 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**
**     ****JES&CALGO.**
**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.**

## 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.**** **

## P13 vs P13-fix/after MG-bug corrected

**T42**

**MC:**** T42 ****vs.**** ****no-T42**

**Ready to look at finer details**

## 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.  **

## Comparison on a subset of All-jets skim    	   <pTjet > = 28 GeV, (same events)

**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 it’s less important in the **
**central region. Some good ICR jets are rejected by this cut (but also by the old cut)**

**Rejected by the p14 cut**

**      ****chf > 0.15 && f90 > 0.5**