01 DB peds R9069005, 9067013

 Pedestal residua for 434 zero-bias events from run 9069005.

The same pedestal for all caps was used - as implemented in the offline DB.

Fig 1.

Fig 2.  Run 9067013, excluded caps >120.  All 4800 tiles, pedestal residua from 100 st_zeroBias events. Y-axis [-50,+150].

Fig 3.  Run 9067013, excluded caps >120. Pedestal corrected spectra for all 4800 tiles, 10K  st_physics events. Y-axis [-50,+150].

Dead MAPMT results with 4 patches 4 towers wide.

Fig 4.

Run 9067013, excluded caps >120. 

Zoom-in Pedestal corrected spectra, one ped per channel.

Top 10K st_physics events (barrel often triggered)

Bottom pedestal residua 100 st_zeroBias events

Fig 5.

Run 9067013, input =100 events, accept if capID=124 , raw spectra.

There are 4 BPRS  crates, so 1200 channels/crate.  In terms of softIds it's

PSD1W:  1-300 + 1501-2400
PSD19W: 301-1500
PSD1E:  2401-2900 + 4101-4800
PSD20E: 2901-4100

Why only 2 channels fired in crate PSD20E ?

02 pedestal(capID)

 Run 9067013, 30K st_physics events, spectra accumulated separately for every cap.

Top plot pedestal (channel), bottom plot integral of pedestal peak to total spectrum.

Fig 1. CAP=122

Fig 2. CAP=123

Fig 3. CAP=124

Fig 4. CAP=125

Fig 5. CAP=126

Fig 6. CAP=127

Fig 7. Raw spectra for capID=125. Left: typical good pedestal, middle: very wide pedestal, right: stuck lower bit.

For run 9067013 I found: 7 tiles with ADC=0, ~47 tiles with wide ped, ~80 tiles with stuck lower bit.

Total ~130 bad BPRS tiles based on pedestal shape, TABLE w/ bad BPRS tiles

Fig 8. QA of pedestals, R9067013, capID=125. Below is 5 plots A,...,F all have BPRS soft ID on the X-axis.

A: raw spectra (scatter plot) +  pedestal from the fit as black cross (with error).

B: my status table based on pedestal spectrum. 0=good, non-zero =sth bad.

C: chi2/DOF from fitting pedestal, values above 10. were flagged as bad

D: sigma of pedestal fit, values aove 2.7 were flagged as bad

E: integral of the found pedestal peak to the total # of entries. On average there was ~230 entries per channel.

Fig 9. BPRS pedestals for 'normal' caps=113,114,115 shown with different colors

Fig 10. BPRS pedestals for caps=100..127 and all softID , white means bad spectrum, typical stats of ~200 events per softID per cap

Fig 11. BPRS:" # of bad caps , only capID=100...127 were examined.

Fig 12. BPRS:" sig(ped)

Fig 13. BPRS:" examples of ped distribution for selected channels. Assuming for sing;e capID sig(ped)=1.5, the degradation of pedestal resolution if capID is not accounted for would be: sqrt(1.5^2 +0.5^2)=1.6 - perhaps it is not worth the effort on average. There still can be outliers.

03 tagging desynchronized capID

BPRS Polygraph detecting corrupted capIDs.

Goal: tag events with desynchronized CAP id, find correct cap ID

Method: 

1. build ped(capID, softID)
2. pick one BPRS crate (19W)
3. compute chi2/dof for  series capID+/-2
4. pick 'best'  capID with smallest chi2/dof
5. use pedestals for best capID for this crate for this event
6. if best capID differs from nominal capID call this event 'desynchronized & fixed'

Input: 23K st_physics events from run 9067013.

For technical reason limited range of nominal capID=[122,126] was used, what reduces data sample to 4% ( 5/128=0.04).

Results:

Fig 1. ADC-ped(capID,softID) vs. softID for crate 1 (i.e. PSD19W) as is'. No capID corruption detection. 

Fig 2. ADC-ped(capID,softID) with capID detection & correction enabled. The same events.

Note, all bands are gone - the capID fix works.

Right: ADC-ped spectra: Black: 594 uncorrupted  events, red: 30 corrupted & fixed events.

The integral for ADC[10,70] are 2914 and 141 for good and fixed events, respectively.

141/2914=0.048;  30/594=0.051 - close enough to call it the same (within stats).

Fig 3. Auxiliary plots. 

TOP left: chi/dof for all events. About 1100 channels is used out of 1200 in served by crate 1. Rejected are bad & outliers.

TOP right: change of chi2/dof for events with corrupted & fixed capID. 

BOTTOM: frequency of capID for good & fixed events, respectively.

Conclusions:

• BPRS-Polygraph algo efficiently identifies and corrects BPRS for corrupted capID, could be adopted to used offline .
• there is no evidence ADC integration widow changes for BPRS data with corrupted capID.   

Table 1.

shows capIDs for the 4 BPRS crates for subsequent events. Looks like for the same event cap IDs are strongly correlated, but different.
Conclusion: if we discard say capID=125, we will make hole of 1/4 of barrel , different in every event. This holds for BPRS & BSMD.

capID= 83:89:87:90: eve=134 
capID= 1:4:11:3: eve=135 
capID= 74:74:81:72: eve=136 
capID= 108:110:116:110: eve=137 
capID= 68:72:73:75: eve=138 
capID= 58:55:65:64: eve=139 
capID= 104:110:106:101: eve=140 
capID= 9:6:8:15: eve=141 
capID= 43:37:47:46: eve=142 
capID= 120:126:118:122: eve=143 
capID= 34:41:41:40: eve=144 
capID= 3:0:126:2: eve=145 
capID= 28:33:28:30: eve=146 
capID= 72:64:70:62: eve=147 
capID= 2:6:7:5: eve=148 
capID= 22:32:33:24: eve=149 
capID= 8:4:5:124: eve=150 
capID= 23:17:17:19: eve=151 
capID= 62:57:63:61: eve=152 
capID= 54:53:45:47: eve=153 
capID= 68:75:70:67: eve=154 
capID= 73:79:73:72: eve=155 
capID= 104:98:103:103: eve=156 
capID= 12:5:13:10: eve=157 
capID= 5:10:10:2: eve=158 
capID= 32:33:27:22: eve=159 
capID= 96:102:106:97: eve=160 
capID= 79:77:72:77: eve=161 

04 BPRS sees beam background?

The pair of plots below demonstrates BPRS pedestal residua are very clean once peds for 128 caps are used and this 5% capID corruption is detected and fixed event by event.

 INPUT: run 9067013, st_phys events, stale BPRS data removed, all 38K events .

Fig 0. capID correction was enabled for the bottom plot. Soft ID is on the X-axis; rawAdc-ped(softID, capID) on the Y-axis.

Now you can believe me the BPRS pedestals are reasonable for this run. Look at the width of pedestal vs. softID, shown in Fig 1 below.

There are 2 regions with wider peds, marked by magenta(?) and red circle.

The individual spectra look fine (fig 2b, 2bb).

But the correlation of pedestal width with softID (fig 1a,1b) and phi-location of respective modules (fig 3a, 3b) suggest it could be due to the beam background at

~7 o'clock on the West and at 6-9 o'clock on the East.

05 ---- peds(softID,capID) & status table, ver=2.2, R9067013

INPUT: st_hysics events from run=9067013

Fig 1. Top: pedestal(softID & capID), middle: sigma of pedestal, bottom: status table, Y-axis counts how many capID had bad spectra.

Based on pedestal spectra there are 134 bad BPRS tiles. 

Fig 2. Distribution of pedestals for 4 selected softIDs, one per crate.

Fig 3. Zoom-in of ped(soft,cap) spectrum to see there is more pairs of 2 capID which have high/low pedestal vs. average, similar to the known pair (124/125).
Looks like such piar like to repeat every 21 capIDs - is there a deeper meaning it?
(I mean will the World end in 21*pi days?)

Fig 4. Example of MIP spectra (bottom). MIP peak is very close to pedestal, there are worse cases than the one below.

06 MIP algo ver 1.1

 TPC based MIP algo was devised to calibrate BPRS tiles.

Details of the algo are in 1st PDF,

example of MIP spectra for 40 tails with ID [1461,1540] are in subsequent 5 PDF files, sorted by MAPMT

Fig 1 shows collapsed ADC-ped response for all 4800 BPRS tiles. The average MIP response is only 10 ADC counts above ped wich has sigma of 1.5 ADC. The average BPRS gain is very is very low.

07 BPRS peds vs. time

Fig 1. Change of BPRS pedestal over ... within the same fill, see softID~1000

Pedestal residua (Y-axis) vs. softID (X-axis), same reference pedestals used from day 67 (so some peds are wrong for both runs)  were used both plots.

Only fmsslow events, no further filtering, capID corruption fixed in fly.

Top run 9066001, start 0:11 am, fill 9989

Bottom run 9066012, start 2:02 am, fill 9989

Fig 2. Run list. system config was changed between those 2 runs marked in blue.

Fig 3. zoom in of run 9066001

Fig 4. another example of BPRS ped jump between runs: 9068022 & 9068032, both in the same fill.

08 BPRS ped calculation using average

Comparison of accuracy of pedestal calculation using Gauss fit & plain average of all data.

The plain average method is our current scheme for ZS for BPRS & BSMD for 2009 data taking.

Fig 2. TOP: RMS of the plain average, using 13K of fmsslow-triggered events which are reasonable surrogate of minBias data for BPRS.
Middle: sigma of pedestal fit using Gauss shape
Bottom: ratio of pedestals from this 2 method. The typical pedestal value is of 170 ADC. I could not make root to display the difference, sorry.

09 BPRS swaps, IGNORING Rory's finding from 2007, take 1

This page is kept only for the record- information here is obsolete.

This analysis does not accounts for BPRS swaps discovered by Rory's in 2007, default a2e maker did not worked properly 

• INPUT: ~4 days of fmsslow-triggered events, days 65-69
• DATA CORRECTIONS:
  • private  BPRS peds(cap,softID) for every run,
  • private status table, the same , based on one run from day 67
  • event-by-event capID corruption detection and correction
  • use vertex with min{|Z|}, ignore ranking to compensate for PPV problem
• TRACKING:
  • select prim tracks with pr>0.4 GeV, dEdX in [1.5,3.7] keV, |eta|<1.2
  • require track enters tower 1cm from the edge and exists tower at any distance to the edge
  • tower ADC is NOT used (yet)
• 2 histograms of rawADC-ped were accumulated: for all events (top plot) and for BPRS tiles pointed by TPC track (middle plot w/ my mapping   & lower plot with default mapping)

There are large section of 'miples' BPRS tiles if default mapping is used: 3x80 tiles + 2x40 tiles=320 tiles, plus there is a lot of small mapping problems. Plots below are divided according to 4 BPRS crates - I assumed the bulk of mapping problems should be contained within single crate. 

Fig 1, crate=0, Middle plot is after swap - was cured for soft id [1861-1900]

   if(softID>=1861 && softID<=1880) softID+=20;
    else if(softID>=1881 && softID<=1900) softID-=20;

Fig2, crate=1, Middle plot is after swap - was cured for soft id [661-740]

  if(softID>=661 && softID<=700) softID+=40;
    else if(softID>=701 && softID<=740) softID-=40;

Fig3, crate=2, Middle plot is after swap - was cured for soft id [4181-4220].

But swap in [2821-2900] is not that trivial - suggestions are welcome?

 if(softID>=4181 && softID<=4220) softID+=40;
    else if(softID>=4221 && softID<=4260) softID-=40;

Fig4, crate=3, swap in [3781-3800] is not that trivial - suggestions are welcome?

10 -------- BPRS swaps take2, _AFTER_ applying Rory's swaps

 2nd Correction of BPRS mapping (after Rory's corrections are applied).

• INPUT: ~7 days of fmsslow-triggered events, days 64-70, 120 runs
• DATA CORRECTIONS:
  • private  BPRS peds(cap,softID) for every run,
  • private status table, excluded only 7 strips with ADC=0
  • event-by-event capID corruption detection and correction
  • use vertex with min{|Z|}, ignore PPV ranking, to compensate for PPV problem
  • BPRS swaps detected by Rory in 2007 data have been applied 
• TRACKING:
  • select prim tracks with pr>0.4 GeV, dEdX in [1.5,3.7] keV, |eta|<1.2, zVertex <50 cm
  • require track enters tower 1cm from the edge and exist the same tower at any distance to the edge (0 cm)
  • tower ADC is NOT used (yet)
• 3 2D histograms of were accumulated:
  •  rawADC-ped (softID)  for all events
  •  the same but only  for BPRS tiles pointed by QAed MIP TPC track 
  •  frequency of correlation BPRS tiles with MIP-like ADC=[7,30] with towers pointed by TPC MIP track

Based on correlation plot (shown as attachment 6) I found ~230 miss-mapped BPRS tiles (after Rory's correction were applied).

Once additional swaps were added ( listed in table 1, and in more logical for in attachment 3) the correlation plot is almost diagonal, shown in attachment 1.

Few examples of discovered swaps are in fig1. The most important are 2 series of 80 strips, each shifted by 1 software ID.

Fig 2 shows MIP signal shows up after shit by 1 softID is implemented. 

The ADC spectra for all 4800 strips are shown in attachment 2. Attachment 5 & 6  list basic QA of 4800 BRS tiles for 2 cases: only Rory's swaps and Rory+Jan swaps.

Fig 1. Examples of swaps, dotted line marks the diagonal. Vertical axis shows towers pointed by TPC MIP track. X-axis shows BPRS soft ID if given ADC was in the range [7,30] - the expected MIP response. Every BPRS tile was examined for every track, multiple times per event if more than 1 MIP track was found. 

Left: 4 sets of 4 strips needs to be rotated.                                              Right: shift by 1 of 80 strips overlaps with rotation of 6 strips.

Fig 2. Example of recovered 80 tiles for softID~2850-2900. Fix: softID was shifted by 1.

Fig 3. Summary of proposed here corrections to existing BPRS mapping

Table 1. List of all BPRS swaps , ver 1.0,  found after Rory's corrections were applied, based on 2008 pp data from days 64-70.

The same list in human readable from is here

Identified BPRS 233 swaps. Convention: old_softID --> new_softID 
389 --> 412 , 390 --> 411 , 391 --> 410 , 392 --> 409 , 409 --> 392 ,
 410 --> 391 , 411 --> 390 , 412 --> 389 , 681 --> 682 , 682 --> 681 ,
 685 --> 686 , 686 --> 685 ,1074 -->1094 ,1094 -->1074 ,1200 -->1240 ,
1220 -->1200 ,1240 -->1260 ,1260 -->1220 ,1301 -->1321 ,1303 -->1323 ,
1313 -->1333 ,1321 -->1301 ,1323 -->1303 ,1333 -->1313 ,1878 -->1879 ,
1879 -->1878 ,1898 -->1899 ,1899 -->1898 ,2199 -->2200 ,2200 -->2199 ,
2308 -->2326 ,2326 -->2308 ,2639 -->2640 ,2640 -->2639 ,2773 -->2793 ,
2793 -->2773 ,2821 -->2900 ,2822 -->2821 ,2823 -->2822 ,2824 -->2823 ,
2825 -->2824 ,2826 -->2825 ,2827 -->2826 ,2828 -->2827 ,2829 -->2828 ,
2830 -->2829 ,2831 -->2830 ,2832 -->2831 ,2833 -->2832 ,2834 -->2833 ,
2835 -->2834 ,2836 -->2835 ,2837 -->2836 ,2838 -->2837 ,2839 -->2838 ,
2840 -->2839 ,2841 -->2840 ,2842 -->2841 ,2843 -->2842 ,2844 -->2843 ,
2845 -->2844 ,2846 -->2845 ,2847 -->2846 ,2848 -->2847 ,2849 -->2848 ,
2850 -->2849 ,2851 -->2850 ,2852 -->2851 ,2853 -->2852 ,2854 -->2853 ,
2855 -->2854 ,2856 -->2855 ,2857 -->2856 ,2858 -->2857 ,2859 -->2858 ,
2860 -->2859 ,2861 -->2860 ,2862 -->2861 ,2863 -->2862 ,2864 -->2863 ,
2865 -->2864 ,2866 -->2865 ,2867 -->2866 ,2868 -->2867 ,2869 -->2868 ,
2870 -->2869 ,2871 -->2870 ,2872 -->2871 ,2873 -->2872 ,2874 -->2873 ,
2875 -->2874 ,2876 -->2875 ,2877 -->2876 ,2878 -->2877 ,2879 -->2878 ,
2880 -->2879 ,2881 -->2880 ,2882 -->2881 ,2883 -->2882 ,2884 -->2883 ,
2885 -->2884 ,2886 -->2885 ,2887 -->2886 ,2888 -->2887 ,2889 -->2888 ,
2890 -->2889 ,2891 -->2890 ,2892 -->2891 ,2893 -->2892 ,2894 -->2893 ,
2895 -->2894 ,2896 -->2895 ,2897 -->2896 ,2898 -->2897 ,2899 -->2898 ,
2900 -->2899 ,3121 -->3141 ,3141 -->3121 ,3309 -->3310 ,3310 -->3309 ,
3717 -->3777 ,3718 -->3778 ,3719 -->3779 ,3720 -->3780 ,3737 -->3757 ,
3738 -->3758 ,3739 -->3759 ,3740 -->3760 ,3757 -->3717 ,3758 -->3718 ,
3759 -->3719 ,3760 -->3720 ,3777 -->3737 ,3778 -->3738 ,3779 -->3739 ,
3780 -->3740 ,3781 -->3861 ,3782 -->3781 ,3783 -->3782 ,3784 -->3783 ,
3785 -->3784 ,3786 -->3785 ,3787 -->3786 ,3788 -->3787 ,3789 -->3788 ,
3790 -->3789 ,3791 -->3790 ,3792 -->3791 ,3793 -->3792 ,3794 -->3793 ,
3795 -->3794 ,3796 -->3835 ,3797 -->3836 ,3798 -->3797 ,3799 -->3798 ,
3800 -->3799 ,3801 -->3840 ,3802 -->3801 ,3803 -->3802 ,3804 -->3803 ,
3805 -->3804 ,3806 -->3805 ,3807 -->3806 ,3808 -->3807 ,3809 -->3808 ,
3810 -->3809 ,3811 -->3810 ,3812 -->3811 ,3813 -->3812 ,3814 -->3813 ,
3815 -->3814 ,3816 -->3855 ,3817 -->3856 ,3818 -->3817 ,3819 -->3818 ,
3820 -->3819 ,3821 -->3860 ,3822 -->3821 ,3823 -->3822 ,3824 -->3823 ,
3825 -->3824 ,3826 -->3825 ,3827 -->3826 ,3828 -->3827 ,3829 -->3828 ,
3830 -->3829 ,3831 -->3830 ,3832 -->3831 ,3833 -->3832 ,3834 -->3833 ,
3835 -->3834 ,3836 -->3795 ,3837 -->3796 ,3838 -->3837 ,3839 -->3838 ,
3840 -->3839 ,3841 -->3800 ,3842 -->3841 ,3843 -->3842 ,3844 -->3843 ,
3845 -->3844 ,3846 -->3845 ,3847 -->3846 ,3848 -->3847 ,3849 -->3848 ,
3850 -->3849 ,3851 -->3850 ,3852 -->3851 ,3853 -->3852 ,3854 -->3853 ,
3855 -->3854 ,3856 -->3815 ,3857 -->3816 ,3858 -->3857 ,3859 -->3858 ,
3860 -->3859 ,3861 -->3820 ,4015 -->4055 ,4016 -->4056 ,4017 -->4057 ,
4018 -->4058 ,4055 -->4015 ,4056 -->4016 ,4057 -->4017 ,4058 -->4018 ,
4545 -->4565 ,4546 -->4566 ,4549 -->4569 ,4550 -->4570 ,4565 -->4545 ,
4566 -->4546 ,4569 -->4549 ,4570 -->4550 ,

  For the reference:

• mapping of BPRS softID to MAPMT made by Will J. in 2007 is shown here: http://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/emc/wwjacobs/tmp/bprs_tubehookup_run7.pdf 
 

Identified BPRS hardware problems:

Tiles w/ ADC=0 for all events:

* 3301-4, 3322-4 - all belong to PMB44-pmt1, dead Fee in 2007
   belonging to the same pmt:
     3321 has pedestal only
     3305-8 and 33205-8  have nice MIP peaks, work well

* 2821, 3781 , both at the end of 80-chanel shift in mapping
     neighbours of 2821: 2822,... have nice MIP 
     similar for neighbours of 3781

* 4525, 4526 FOUND! should be readout from cr=2 position 487 & 507, respectively 
 
I suspect all those case we are reading wrong 'positon' from the DAQ file



Pair of consecutive tiles with close 100% cross talk, see Fig 4.
35+6, 555+6, 655+6, 759+60, 1131+2, 1375+6, 1557+8,
2063+4, 2163+4, 2749+50, 3657+8,   
3739 & 3740 copy value of 3738 - similar case but with 3 channels.
4174+5


Hot pixels, fire at random
1514, 1533, 1557,
block: 3621-32, 3635,3641-52 have broken fee, possible mapping problem 
block: 3941-3976 have broken fee


Almost copy-cat total 21 strips in sections of 12+8+1
3021..32, 3041..48, 3052
All have very bread pedestal. 3052 may show MIP peak if its gain is low.

Fig 4. Example of pairs of correlated channels.

11 BPRS absolute gains from MIP, ver1.0 ( example of towers)

 BPRS absolute gains from MIP, ver 1.0 

• INPUT: ~9 days of fmsslow-triggered events, days 62-70, 200 runs, 6M events
• DATA CORRECTIONS:
  • private  BPRS peds(cap,softID) for every run,
  • private status table, excluded only 7 strips with ADC=0
  • event-by-event capID corruption detection and correction
  • use vertex with min{|Z|}, ignore PPV ranking, to compensate for PPV problem
  • BPRS swaps detected by Rory in 2007 data have been applied 
  • BTOW swaps detected & applied
• TRACKING:
  • select prim tracks with pr>0.4 GeV, dEdX in [1.5,3.3] keV, |eta|<1.3, zVertex <50 cm
  • require track enters & exits a tower 1cm from the edge
• triple MIP coincidence, requires the following (restrictive) cuts:
  
  •  to see BPRS  MIP ADC :  TPC MIP track and in the same BTOW tower  ADC in [10,25] 
  •  to see BTOW MIP ADC :  TPC MIP track and in the same BPRS tile  ADC in [7,30] 

Fig 1 Typical MIP signal seen by BPRS(left) & BTOW (right) for soft ID=??, BPM16.2.x  (see attachment 1 for more)

Magenta line is at MIP MPV-1*sigma -> 15% false positives

Fig 2 Typical MIP signal seen by BPRS, pmt=BPM16.2

Average gain of this PMT is on the top left plot, MIP is seen in ADC=4.9, sig=2.6

Fig 3 Most desired MIP signal (ADC=16) seen by BPRS(left) & BTOW (right) for soft ID=1388, BPM12.1.8

Magenta line is at MIP MPV-1*sigma -> 15% false positives,  (see attachment 2 for more)

Fig 4 Reasonable BPRS, pmt=BPM11.3, pixel to pixel gain variations is small

Fig 5 High MIP signal (ADC=28) seen by BPRS(left) & BTOW (right) , BPM11.5.14

Magenta line is at MIP MPV-1*sigma -> 15% false positives,  (see attachment 3 for more)

Fig 6 High gain BPRS, pmt=BPM11.5

12 MIP gains ver1.0 (all tiles, also BTOW)

 This is still work in progress, same algo as on previous post.

Now I run on  12M events (was 6 M) and do rudimentary QA on MIP spectra, which results with ~10% channel loss (the bottom figure). However, the average MIP response per tile is close to the final value.

Conclusion: only green & light yellow tiles have reasonable MIP response of ~15 ADC. For blue we need to rise HV, for red we can lower it (to reduce after pulsing). White area are masked/dead pixels.

Fig 1: BPRS MIP gains= gauss fit to MIP peak.

A) gains vs. eta & phi to see BPM pattern. B) gains with errors vs. softID, C) sigma MIP shape, D) tiles killed in QA 

Fig 2: BTOW MIP gains= gauss fit to MIP peak. Content of this plot may change in next iteration.

A) gains vs. eta & phi. "ideal" MIP is at ADC=18, all towers. Yellow& red have significantly to high HV, light blue & blue have too low HV.

B) gains with errors vs. softID, C) sigma MIP shape, D) towers killed in QA 

13 MIP algo, ver=1.1 (example of towers)

This is an illustration of improvement of MIP finding efficiency if ADC gates are set on BPRS & BTOW at the places matched to actual gains instead of  fixed 'ideal' location.

Fig 1 is from previous iteration (item 11) with fixed location  MIP gates. Note low MIP yield in BPRS (red histo) due to mismatched BTOW ADC gate (blue bar below green histo).

Fig 2 New iteration with adjusted MIP gates. (marked by blue dashed lines).

MIP ADC gate is defined (based on iteration 1) by mean value of the gauss fit +/- 1 sigma of the gauss width, but not lower than ADC=3.5 and not higher than 2* mean ADC

Note similar MIP yield in BPRS  & BTOW. Also new MIP peak position from Gauss fit did not changed, meaning algo is robust. The 'ideal' MIP ADC range for BTOW is marked by magenta bar (bottom right) - is visibly too low.

Attached PDF shows similar plots for 16 towers. Have a look at page 7 & 14

14 ---- MIP gains ver=1.6 , 90% of 4800 tiles ----

 BPRS absolute gains using TPC MIPs & BTOW MIP cut, ver 1.6 , 2008 pp data

• INPUT:  fmsslow-triggered events, days 43-70, 525 runs, 16M events (see attachment 1)
  • BTOW peds & ped-status  from offline DB
• DATA CORRECTIONS (not avaliable using official STAR software)
  • discard stale events
  • private  BPRS peds(cap,softID) for every run,
  • private status table
  • event-by-event capID corruption detection and correction
  • use vertex with min{|Z|}, ignore PPV ranking, to compensate for PPV problem
  • BPRS swaps detected by Rory in 2007 data have been applied 
  • additional ~240 BPRS swaps detected & applied
  • BTOW ~50 swaps detected & applied
  • BTOW MIP position determine independently (offline DB gains not used)
• TRACKING:
  • select prim tracks with pr>0.35 GeV, dEdX in [1.5,3.3] keV, |eta|<1.3, zVertex <60 cm, last point on track Rxy>180cm
  • require track enters & exits a tower 1cm from the edge, except for etaBin=20 - only 0.5cm is required (did not helped)
• triple MIP coincidence, requires the following (restrictive) cuts:
  
  •  to see BPRS  MIP ADC :  TPC MIP track and in the same BTOW tower  ADC in  MIP peak +/- 1 sigma , but above 5 ADC 
  •  to see BTOW MIP ADC :  TPC MIP track and in the same BPRS tile   ADC in  MIP peak +/- 1 sigma , but above 3.5 ADC

Fig 1.   Example of typical BPRS & BTOW MIP peak determine in this analysis. 

MIP ADC gate (blue vertical lines) is defined (based on iteration 1.0) by the mean value of the gauss fit +/- 1 sigma of the gauss width, but not lower than ADC=3.5 (BPRS) or 5 (BTOW) and not higher than 2* mean ADC.

 FYI, the  nominal MIP ADC range for BTOW (ADC=4096 @ ET=60 GeV/c) is marked by magenta bar (bottom right).

• Attachment 6 contains 4800 plots  of BPRS & BTOW like this one below ( large 53MB !!)
• Numerical values of MIP peak position,width, yield  for all 4800 BPRS tiles are in attachment 4.

Fig 2.  ADC of MIP peak for 4800 BPRS tiles.

Top plot: mean, X-axis follows eta bin , first West then East. Y-axis follows  |eta| bin, 20 is at physical eta=+/- 1.0.Large white areas are due to bad BPRS MAPMT (4x4 or 2x8 channels), single white rectangles are due to bad BPRS tile or bad BTOW tower.

Middle plot: mean +/- error of mean, X-axis =soft ID. One would wish mean MIP value is above 15 ADC to place MIP cut comfortable above the pedestal (sig=1.5-1.8 ADC counts).

Bottom plot: width of MIP distribution. Shows the width of MIP shape is comparable to the mean and we want to put MIP cut well below the mean to not loose half of discrimination power.

Note, the large # 452 of not calibrated BPRS tiles does not mean that many are broken. There are 14 known bad PMTs and e 'halves' , total=15*16=240 (see attachment 2). There rest are due broken towers (required by MIP coincidence) and isolated broken fibers, FEE channels.

Fig 3. Example of PMT with fully working 16 channels.
Top left plot shows average MIP ADC from 16 pixels. Top middle: correlation between MIP peak ADC and raw slope - can be used for relative gain change in 2009. Top right shows BTOW average MIP response.
Middle: MIP spectra for 16 pixels.
Bottom: raw spectra fro the same 16 pixels.

300 plots like this  is in attachment 3.

Fig 4.  Top plot: average over 16 pixels MIP ADC  for 286 BPRS pmts.  X axis = PMB# [1-30] + pmt #[1-5]/10. Error bars represent RMS of distribution (not error of the mean).

Middle plot : ID of 14 not calibrated PMTs. For detailed location of broken PMTs see attachment 2,  the red computer-generated ovals on the top of 2007 Will's scribbles mark broken PMTs (blue ovals are repaired PMTs) found in this 2008 analysis.

Bottom plot shows # of pixels in given PMT  with reasonable MIP signal (used in the top figure).

• Numerical values of MIP peak per PMT are in attachment 5.

Fig 5.  ADC of MIP peak for 4800 BTOW tower. Top lot: mean, middle plot: mean +/- error of mean, bottom plot: width of MIP 

•  Numerical values of MIP peak position,width, yield  for all 4800  BTOW towers are in attachment 4.

Note, probably 1/2 of not calibrated BTOW towers are broken, the other half is due to bad BPRS tiles, required to work by this particular algo.

Koniec !!!

15 Broken BPRS channels ver=1.6, based on data from March of 2008

 The following BPRS pmts/tiles have been found broken or partially not functioning, based on reco MIP response from pp 2008 data.

 Based on PMT-sorted spectra available HERE  (300 pages , 3.6MB)

Table 1. Simply dead PMT's. Raw spectra contain 16 nice pedestals, no energy above, see Fig 2.

PMB,pmt, PDF page # , 16 mapped softIDs
2,3     8, 2185 2186 2187 2188 2205 2206 2207 2208 2225 2226 2227 2228 2245 2246 2247 2248 
2,4,    9, 2189 2190 2191 2192 2209 2210 2211 2212 2229 2230 2231 2232 2249 2250 2251 2252 
4,5,   20, 2033 2034 2035 2036 2053 2054 2055 2056 2073 2074 2075 2076 2093 2094 2095 2096 
5,1,   21, 1957 1958 1959 1960 1977 1978 1979 1980 1997 1998 1999 2000 2017 2018 2019 2020 
12,2,  57, 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 
14,1,  66, 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 
24,4, 119, 433 434 435 436 453 454 455 456 473 474 475 476 493 494 495 496 
25,4, 124, 353 354 355 356 373 374 375 376 393 394 395 396 413 414 415 416 
26,4, 129, 269 270 271 272 289 290 291 292 309 310 311 312 329 330 331 332 
32,3, 158, 2409 2410 2411 2412 4749 4750 4751 4752 4769 4770 4771 4772 4789 4790 4791 4792 
44,5, 220, 3317 3318 3319 3320 3337 3338 3339 3340 3357 3358 3359 3360 3377 3378 3379 3380 
39,2, 192, 2905 2906 2907 2908 2925 2926 2927 2928 2945 2946 2947 2948 2965 2966 2967 2968    

Table 2.  FEE is broken (or 8-connector has a black tape), disabling 1/2 of PMT, see Fig 3.

PMB,pmt,  nUsedPix,  avrMIP (adc), rmsMIP (adc),PDF page # , all mapped softIDs
7,1,   7,   19.14, 4.36,  31, 1797 1798 1799 1800 1817 1818 1819 1820 1837 1838 1839 1840 1857 1858 1859 1860   
40,1,  8,    5.16, 0.53, 196, 2981 2982 2983 2984 3001 3002 3003 3004 3021 3022 3023 3024 3041 3042 3043 3044  
40,2,  6,    5.44, 0.80, 197, 2985 2986 2987 2988 3005 3006 3007 3008 3025 3026 3027 3028 3045 3046 3047 3048  
40,3, 12,    8.50, 1.05, 198, 2989 2990 2991 2992 3009 3010 3011 3012 3029 3030 3031 3032 3049 3050 3051 3052    
44,1, 10,   13.72, 8.24, 216, 3301 3302 3303 3304 3305 3306 3307 3308 3321 3322 3323 3324 3325 3326 3327 3328  
45,2,  8,    5.04, 1.55, 222, 3421 3422 3423 3424 3425 3426 3427 3428 3441 3442 3443 3444 3445 3446 3447 3448   
51,5,  7,   11.37, 2.15, 255, 3877 3878 3879 3880 3897 3898 3899 3900 3917 3918 3919 3920 3937 3938 3939 3940  
52,5,  8,   15.84, 4.80, 260, 3957 3958 3959 3960 3977 3978 3979 3980 3997 3998 3999 4000 4017 4018 4019 4020  
60,1,  8,   15.12, 3.41, 296, 4581 4582 4583 4584 4601 4602 4603 4604 4621 4622 4623 4624 4641 4642 4643 4644

Table 3. Very low yield of MIPs (1/5 of typical), may de due to badly sitting optical connector, see Fig 4

PMB,pmt, QAflag, nUsedPix,  avrMIP (adc), rmsMIP (adc),PDF page # , all mapped softIDs
10,5,  14,     0,  0.00, 0.00,  50, 1553 1554 1555 1556 1573 1574 1575 1576 1593 1594 1595 1596 1613 1614 1615 1616    
31,5,  14,     0,  0.00, 0.00, 155, 4677 4678 4679 4680 4697 4698 4699 4700 4717 4718 4719 4720 4737 4738 4739 4740  
37,2,   0,    10, 12.90, 7.41, 182, 2745 2746 2747 2748 2765 2766 2767 2768 2785 2786 2787 2788 2805 2806 2807 2808    
49,1,   0,    16,  9.36, 3.55, 241, 3701 3702 3703 3704 3705 3706 3707 3708 3721 3722 3723 3724 3725 3726 3727 3728   

Table 4. Stuck LSB in FEE, we can live with this. (do NOT mask those tiles)

PMB,pmt, QAflag, nUsedPix,  avrMIP (adc), rmsMIP (adc),PDF page # , all mapped softIDs
51,1,0, 15,   8.37, 1.30, 251, 3861 3862 3863 3864 3881 3882 3883 3884 3901 3902 3903 3904 3921 3922 3923 3924  
51,2,0, 16,   8.66, 1.06, 252, 3865 3866 3867 3868 3885 3886 3887 3888 3905 3906 3907 3908 3925 3926 3927 3928  
51,3,0, 16,  11.08, 1.28, 253, 3869 3870 3871 3872 3889 3890 3891 3892 3909 3910 3911 3912 3929 3930 3931 3932  
51,4,0, 16,  17.16, 2.70, 254, 3873 3874 3875 3876 3893 3894 3895 3896 3913 3914 3915 3916 3933 3934 3935 3936   

Table 5. Other problems:

PMB,pmt, QAflag, nUsedPix,  avrMIP (adc), rmsMIP (adc),PDF page # , all mapped softIDs
31,2,0, 16,  12.32, 3.73, 152,4665 4666 4667 4668 4685 4686 4687 4688 4705 4706 4707 4708 4725 4726 4727 4728   

Fig 1. Example of fully functioning PMT (BPM=4, pmt=5). 16 softID are listed at the bottom o fthe X-axis.
Top plot: ADC spectra after MIP condition is imposed based on TPC track & BTOW response.
Bottom plot: raw ADC spectra for the same channels.

Fig 2. Example of dead PMT with functioning FEE.  

Fig 3. Example of half-dead PMT, comes in pack, most likely broken FEE.  

Fig 4. Example of weak raw ADC, perhaps optical connector got loose.  

Fig 5. Example of stuck LSB, We can live with this, but gain hardware must be ~10% higher (ADC--> 18)  

16 correlation of MIP ADC vs. raw slopes

 Scott asked for crate based comparison of MIP peak position vs. raw slopes .

I selected 100 consecutive BPRS tiles, in 2 groups, from each of the 4 crates. The crate with systematic lower gain is the 4th (PSD-20E). 

The same spectra from pp 2008 fmsslow events are used as for all items in the Drupal page.

Fig 1. BPRS carte=PSD-1W

Fig 2. BPRS carte=PSD-19W

Fig 3. BPRS carte=PSD-1E

Fig 4. BPRS carte=PSD-20E This one has lower MIP peak

01 BPRS live channels on day 82, pp 500 data

Status of BPRS live channels on March 23, 2009, pp 500 data.

Input: 32K events accepted by L2W algo, from 31 runs taken on day 81 & 82.

Top fig shows high energy region for 4800 BPRS tiles

Middle fig shows pedestal region, note we have ZS & ped subtracted data in daq - plots is consistent. White area are not functioning tiles.

Bottom fig: projection of all tiles. Bad channels included. Peak at ADC~190 is from corrupted channels softID~3720. Peak at the end comes most likely form saturation of BPRS if large energy is deposited. It is OK - BPRS main use is as a MIP counter.

Attached PDF contains more detailed spectra so one can see every tile.

01) raw spectra

 Goals:

1. verify pedestals loaded to DB are reasonable for 2008 pp data
2. estimate stats needed to find slopes of individual strips for minB events

 Method:

1. look at pedestal residua for individual strips, exclude caps 1 & 2, use only status==1
2. fit gauss & compare with histo mean
3. find integrals of individual strips, sum  over 20 ADC channels starting from ped+5*sig 

To obtain muDst w/o zero suppression I run privately the following production chain:

chain="DbV20080703 B2008a ITTF IAna ppOpt VFPPV l3onl emcDY2 fpd ftpc trgd ZDCvtx NosvtIT NossdIT analysis Corr4 OSpaceZ2 OGridLeak3D beamLine BEmcDebug"

Fig 1

Examples of single strip pedestal residua, based on ~80K minB events from days 47-65, 30 runs. (1223 is # of bins, ignore it).

Left is typical good spectrum, see Fig2.3. Middle is also reasonable, but peds is 8 channels wide vs. typical 4 channels.

The strip shown on the right plot is probably broken. 

Fig 2

Detailed view on first 500 strips. X=stripID for all plots.

1. Y=mean of the gauss fit to pedestal residuum, in ADC channels, error=sigma of the gauss.
2. Y=integral of over 20 ADC channels starting from ped+5*sig. 
3. Raw spectra, Y=ADC-ped, exclude caps 1 & 2, use only status==1

Fig 3

Broader view of ... problems in BSMD-E plane. Note, status flag was taken in to account.

Top plot is sum of 30 runs from days 47-65, 80K events. Bottom plot is just 1 run, 3K events. You can't distinguish individual channels, but scatter plot works like a sum of channels, so it is clear the slopes are there, we need just more data.

Conclusions:

1. DB peds for BSMDE look good on average.
2. with 1M eve we will start to see  gains for individual strip relativewith ~20% error. Production will finish tomorrow.
3. there are portions of SMDE masked out (empty area in fig 3.2, id=1000) - do why know what broke? Will it be fixed in 2009 run
4. there are portions of SMDE not masked but dead (solid line in fig 3.2, id=1400) - worth to go after those
5. there are portions of SMDE not masked with unstable (or wrong) pedestal, (fig 3.1 id=15000)
6. for most channels there is one or more caps with different ped not accounted for in DB ( thin line below pedestal in fig 2.3)
7. One gets a taste of gain variation from fig 2.2
8. Question: what width of pedestal is tolerable. Fig 2.1 shows width as error bars. Should I kill channel ID=152?

02) relative BSMD-E gains from 1M dAu events

 Glimpse of relative calibration of BSMDE from 2008 d+Au data

Input: 1M dAu minb events from runs: 8335112+8336019

Method : fit slopes to individual strips, as discussed 01) raw spectra

Fig 1

Examples of raw pedestal corrected spectra for first 9 strips, 1M dAu events

Fig 2

Detailed view on first 500 strips. X=stripID for all plots.

1. Y=mean of the gauss fit to pedestal residuum, in ADC channels, error=sigma of the gauss.
2. Y=integral of over 20 ADC channels starting from ped+5*sig. Raw spectra,
3. Y=gain defined as "-slope" from the exponential fit over ADC range  20-40  channels, errors from expo fit. Blue line is constant fit to gains.

Fig 3

BSMDE strips cover the whole barrel and eta-phi representation is better suited to present 18K strips in one plot.

1. Mapping of BSMDE-softID (Z-axis) in to eta-phi space. Eta bin 0 is eta=-1.0, eta bin 299 is eta=+1.0. Phi bin 0 starts at 12:30 and advances as phi angle. 
2. gains for majority of 18K BSMDE strips. White means no data or discarded by rudimentary QA of peds, yields or slope.

Fig 4

For reference spectra from 1M pp events from ~12 EmcCheck runs from days 47-51. It proves I did it and it was naive on my side to expect 1M pp events is enough.

Fig 5

More pp events spectra - lot of problems with DB content. 

03) more details , answering Will

 This page provides more details addressing some of Will's questions.

   2) fig 2: well, 500 chns is not a very "natural" unit, but I wonder
      what corresponds to 50 chns (e.g., the region of fluctuation
      250-300) ... I need to check my electronics readout diagrams
      again, or maybe folks more expert will comment

Fig 1.

Zoom-in of the god-to-bad region of BSMDE

Fig 2. 

'Good' strips belong to barrel module 2, crate 2, sitting at ~1 o'cloCk on the WEST

Fig 3. 

'BAD' strips belong also  to barrel module 2, crate 2, sitting at ~1 o'cloCk on the WEST

04) bad CAP 123

 Study of pedestal correlation for BSMDE

Goal: identify source of the band below main pedestals. 

Figs 1,2 show pedestals 'breathe' in correlated way for channels in the same crate, but this mode is decoupled between crates. It may be enough to use individual peds for all CAPS to reduce this correlation.

Fig3 shows CAP=123 has bi-modal pedestals. FYI, CAPS 124,125 were excluded because they also are different.

Based on Fig1 & 3 one could write an algo identifying event by event in which mode CAP=123 settled, but for now I'll discard CAP123 as well.

 All plots are made based on 500K d-Au events from the run 8336052.

Fig 0
Example of pedestal residua for BSMDE strips 1-500, after CAPS 124 and 125 were excluded.

Fig 1
Correlation between pedestal residua for neighbor strips. Strip 100 is used on all plots on the X-axis

Fig 2
Correlation between pedestal residua for strips in different crates. Strip 100 is used on all plots on the X-axis

Fig 3
Squared pedestal residua for strips [1,150] were summed for every event and plotted as function of CAP ID (Y-axis).

Those strips belong to the same module #1 . X-axis shoes SQRT(sum) for convenience. CAP=123 has double pedestal.

05) BSMDE saturation, dAu, 500K minB eve

 Input: 500K d-Au events from run 8336052,

Method : drop CAPS 123,124,125, subtract single ped for all other CAPS.

Fig 1 full resolution, only 6 modules , every module contains 150 strips.

Fig 2 All 18K strips (120 modules), every module contain only 6 bins, every bin is sum of 25 strips. 

 h->RebinX(25), h->SetMinimum(2), h->SetMaximum(1e5)

06) QAed relative gains BSMDE, 3M d-Au events , ver1.0

Version 1 of relative gains for BSMDE, d-AU 2008.

INPUT: 3M d-AU events from day ~336 of 2007.

Method: fit slopes to ADC =ped+30,ped+100.

The spectra,  fits of pedestal residuum, and slopes were QAed.

Results: slopes were found for 16,577 of 18,000 strips of BSMDE.

Fig1   Good spectrum for strip ID=1. X-axis ADC-ped, CAPs=123,124,124 excluded.

Fig2 TOP:  slopes distribution (Y-axis) vs. stripID within given module ( X-axis). Physical eta=0.0 is at X=0, eta=1.0 is at X=150.

BOTTOM: status tables with marked eta-phi location excluded 1423 strips of BSMDE by multi-stage QA of the spectra. Different colors denote various failed tests.

Fig3 Mapping of known BSMDE topology on chosen by us eta-phi 2D localization. Official stripID is shown in color.

07) QA method for SMD-E, slopes , ver1.1

Automatic QA of BSMDE minB spectra. 

Content

1. example of good spectra (fig 0)
2. QA cuts definition (table 1) + spectra (figs 1-7)
3. Result:
   1. # of bad strips per module. BSMDE modules 10,31,68  are damaged above  50%+. (modules 16-30 served by crate 4 were not QAed). 
   2. eta-phi distributions of: slopes, slope error (fig 9) , pedestal, pedestal (fig 10) width _after_ QA
   3. sample of good and bad plots from every module, including modules 16-30 (PDF at the end)

The automatic  procedure doing QA of  spectra was set up in order to preserve only good looking spectra as shown in the fig 0 below. 

Fig 0   Good spectra for random strips in module=2. X-axis shows pedestal residua. It is shown to set a scale for the bad strips shown below. 

INPUT: 3M d-AU events from day ~336 of 2007.

All spectra were pedestals subtracted, using one value per strip, CAPS=123,124,125 were excluded. Below I'll use term 'ped' instead of more accurate pedestal residuum.

Method: fit slopes to ADC =ped+40,ped+90 or 5*sig(ped) if too low.

The spectra,  fits of pedestal residuum, and slopes were QAed.

QA method was set up as sequential series of cuts, upon failure later cuts were not checked.

Note, BSMD rate 4 had old resistors in day 366 of 2007 and was excluded from this analysis.
This reduces # of strips from 18,000 to 15,750 . 

Fig 1 Example of strips failing QA cut #2, MPV position out of range , random strip selection

Fig 2a Distribution of width of pedestal vs. eta-bin

Fig 2b Example of strips failing QA cut #3, width of pedestal out of range , random strip selection

Fig 3a Distribution of pedestal position vs. eta-bin

Fig 3b Example of strips failing QA cut #4, pedestal position out of range , random strip selection

Fig 4a Distribution of yield from the slope fit range vs. eta-bin

Fig 4b Example of strips failing QA cut #5, yield from the slope fit range out of range , random strip selection

Fig 5a Distribution of chi2/DOF from the slope fit vs. eta-bin

Fig 5b Example of strips failing QA cut #6, chi2/DOF from the slope fit out of range , random strip selection

Fig 6a Distribution of err/slope vs. eta-bin

Fig 6b Example of strips failing QA cut #7, err/slope out of range , random strip selection

Fig 7a Distribution of slope vs. eta-bin

Fig 7b Example of strips failing QA cut #8, slope out of range , random strip selection

Results

Fig 8a Distribution of # of bad strips per module. 

BSMDE modules 10,31,68  are damaged above  50%+. Ymax was set to 150, i.e. to the # of eat strips per module. Modules 16-30 served by crate 4 were not QAed. 

Fig 8b 2D Distribution of # of bad strips indexed by eta & phi strip location. Z-scale denotes error code from the 2nd column from table 1.

Fig 9 2D Distribution of slope indexed by eta & phi strip location.
TOP: slopes. There is room for gain improvement in the offline analysis. At fixed eta (vertical line) there should be no color variation.
BOTTOM error of slope/slope.

Fig 10 2D Distribution of pedestal and pedestal width indexed by eta & phi strip location.
TOP: pedestal
BOTTOM: pedestal width.

08) SMD-E gain equalization , ver 1.1

Goal : predict BSMD-E relative gain corrections for every eta bin 

Method : find average slope per eta slice, fit gauss, determine average slope : avrSlope(iEta)

Gain correction formula is used only for extreme deviations:  

• gainCorr_i = slope_i/avrSlope(iEta),  i =1,..,18,000
• if( fabs(1-gainCorr)<0.15) gainCor=1.0  // do not correct

Fig 1 Example of 2 eta slices

Fig 2 TOP: Slope distribution vs. eta-bin, average marked by crosses

BOTTOM: predicted gain correction. Correction=1 for strips w/ undetermined gains. 

Fig 3 Predicted gain correction. Correction=1 for ~14K of 18K strips.

Fig 4 The same predicted gain correction vs. stripID.

09) QA of SMD-P slopes, ver1.1

Automatic QA of BSMD-P minB spectra. 

Content

1. example of good spectra (fig 0)
2. QA cuts definition (table 1) + spectra (figs 1-7)
3. Result:
   1. # of bad strips per module. BSMD-P modules 1,4,59,75,85  are damaged above  50%+. (modules 16-30 served by crate 4 were not QAed). 
   2. eta-phi distributions of: slopes, slope error (fig 9) , pedestal, pedestal (fig 10) width _after_ QA
   3. sample of good and bad plots from every module, including modules 16-30 (PDF at the end)

The automatic  procedure doing QA of  spectra was set up in order to preserve only good looking spectra as shown in the fig 0 below. 

Fig 0   Good spectra for random strips in module=2. X-axis shows pedestal residua. It is shown to set a scale for the bad strips shown below. 

INPUT: 3M d-AU events from day ~336 of 2007.

All spectra were pedestals subtracted, using one value per strip, CAPS=123,124,125 were excluded. Below I'll use term 'ped' instead of more accurate pedestal residuum.

Method: fit slopes to ADC =ped+40,ped+90 or 5*sig(ped) if too low.

The spectra,  fits of pedestal residuum, and slopes were QAed.

QA method was set up as sequential series of cuts, upon failure later cuts were not checked.

Note, BSMD rate 4 had old resistors in day 366 of 2007 and was excluded from this analysis.
This reduces # of strips from 18,000 to 15,750 . 

Fig 1 Example of strips failing QA cut #2, MPV position out of range , random strip selection

Fig 2a Distribution of width of pedestal vs. strip # inside the module. For the East side I cout strips as -1,-2, ...,-150.

Fig 2b Example of strips failing QA cut #3, width of pedestal out of range , random strip selection

Fig 3 Distribution of pedestal position vs. strip # inside the module 

Fig 4a Distribution of yield from the slope fit range vs. eta-bin

Fig 4b Example of strips failing QA cut #5, yield from the slope fit range out of range , random strip selection

Fig 5a Distribution of chi2/DOF from the slope fit vs. eta-bin

Fig 5b Example of strips failing QA cut #6, chi2/DOF from the slope fit out of range , random strip selection

Fig 6 Distribution of err/slope vs. eta-bin

Fig 7a Distribution of slope vs. eta-bin

Fig 7b Example of strips failing QA cut #8, slope out of range , random strip selection

Results

Fig 8a Distribution of # of bad strips per module. 

BSMD-P modules 1,4,59,75,85  are damaged above  50%+. Ymax was set to 150, i.e. to the # of eat strips per module. Modules 16-30 served by crate 4 were not QAed. 

Fig 8b 2D Distribution of # of bad strips indexed by eta & phi strip location. Z-scale denotes error code from the 2nd column from table 1.

Fig 9 2D Distribution of slope indexed by eta & phi strip location.
TOP: slopes.  At fixed eta (horizontal line) there should be no color variation. red=dead strips
BOTTOM error of slope/slope. white=dead strip

Fig 10 2D Distribution of pedestal and pedestal width indexed by eta & phi strip location.
TOP: pedestal. dead strip have 0 residuum.
BOTTOM: pedestal width. white marks dead strips

10) SMD-P gain equalization , ver 1.1

Goal : predict BSMD-P relative gain corrections for every eta bin 

Method : find average slope per eta slice, fit gauss, determine average slope : avrSlope(iEta)

Gain correction formula is used only for extreme deviations:  

• gainCorr_i = slope_i/avrSlope(iEta),  i =1,..,18,000
• if( fabs(1-gainCorr)<0.10) gainCor=1.0  // do not correct

Fig 1 Example of 2 eta slices

Fig 2 LEFT: Slope distribution vs. eta-bin, average marked by crosses

RIGHT: predicted gain correction. Correction=1 for strips w/ undetermined gains. 

Fig 3 Predicted gain correction. Correction=1 for ~14K of 18K strips.

Fig 4 The same predicted gain correction vs. stripID.

12) investigating status of P-strips

Fig 1. West BSMD-P

Fig 2. East BSMD-P

p>

13) ver 1.2 : SMD-E, -P, status & relative gains, no Crate4

Automatic BSMD-E, -P   relative calibration and status tables. 

The second pass through both SMDE, SMDP was performed, learning from previous mistakes.

Main changes:

• relax most of the QA cuts
• smooth raw spectra to reduce significance 1-2 channels wide  of spikes and deeps in raw spectra
• extend slop fit range to ped +[30,100]
• still do not use crate 4 - it has to many problems
• reduce margin for gain correction - now 10%+ deviation is corrected.  

INPUT: 3M d-AU events from day ~336 of 2007.

All spectra were pedestals subtracted, using one value per strip, CAPS=123,124,125 were excluded. Below I'll use term 'ped' instead of more accurate pedestal residuum.

Method: fit slopes to ADC =ped+30,ped+100 or 5*sig(ped) if too low.

The spectra,  fits of pedestal residuum, and slopes were QAed.

Note, BSMD rate 4 had old resistors in day 366 of 2007 and was excluded from this analysis.
This reduces # of strips from 18,000 to 15,750 . 

Relative gain corrections for every eta bin 

Method : find average slope per eta slice, fit gauss, determine average slope : avrSlope(iEta)

Gain correction formula is used only for extreme deviations:  

• gainCorr_i = slope_i/avrSlope(iEta),  i =1,..,18,000
• if( fabs(1-gainCorr)<0.10) gainCor=1.0  // do not correct

PDF2 plots  shows: 

• Fig 1  SMDE status table, distribution per module
• Fig 2  SMDP status table, distribution per module
• Fig 3  SMDE  gain corrections,  changed 3408 strips=22%
• Fig 4  SMDP  gain corrections,  changed 2067 strips=13%

Summary of BSMDE,P status tales and gains , ver 1.2 

14 Eval of BSMDE status tables for pp 2008, day 49,50

Method:

 from _private_ production w/o zero BSMD suppression we look at pedestal residua for raw spectra for minb events.

chain="DbV20080703 B2008a ITTF IAna ppOpt VFPPV l3onl emcDY2 fpd ftpc  
trgd ZDCvtx NosvtIT NossdIT analysis Corr4 OSpaceZ2 OGridLeak3D  
beamLine BEmcDebug"

The only QA was to require  MPV of the spectrum is below 100, one run contains ~80K events.

Fig 1

Good spectra look like this:

Fig 2. Run 9049053, 80K events,

9,292 strips out of 15,750 tested were discarded by condition MPV>100 eve

TOP: MPV value from all strips. White means 0 (zero) counts. Crate 4 was not evaluated.
BOTTOM: status table: red=bad, white means MPV>100 events

Fig 3. Run 9050022, 80K events,

9,335 strips out of 15,750 tested were discarded by condition MPV>100 eve

TOP: MPV value from all strips. White means 0 (zero) counts
BOTTOM: status table: red=bad, white means MPV>100 events

Fig 4. Run 9050088, 80K events,

9,169 strips out of 15,750 tested were discarded by condition MPV>100 eve

TOP: MPV value from all strips. White means 0 (zero) counts
BOTTOM: status table: red=bad, white means MPV>100 events

15 stability of BSDM peds, day 47 is good

 Peds from run minB 17 were used as reference

Fig1 . pedestal residua for runs 17,29,31

Fig2 . pedestal residua for run 31, full P-plane

Fig3 . pedestal residua for run 31, full E-plane

Fig4 . pedestal residua for run 31, zoom in E-plane

Fig5 . pedestal residua for run 29, West, E-plane red, P-plane black, error=ped error

15a ped stability day 47, take 2

 On August 8, BSMD peds in the offline DB where corrected for day 47.

Runs minb 34 & 74 were used to determine and upload DB peds.

Below I evaluated pedestal residua for 2 runs : 37 & 70, both belonging to the same RHIC fill.

I have used 500 zero-bias events from runs 37 & 70, for the official production w/o zero suppression.

All strips for which  mTables->getStatus(iEP, id, statPed,"pedestal"); returns !=1 and all events using CAP123,124,125 were dropped.

Fig 1,2 show big picture: all 38,000 strips.

Fig 3 is zoom in on some small & big problems.

Fig 4 & 5 illustrates improvement if run-by-run pedestal is used. 

Fig 1, run=9047037

Fig 2, run=9047070

Fig 3, run=9047070, zoom in

Private peds were determine for 16 runs for day 47 and used appropriately. Below is sum of ped residua from all 16 runs, from zero bias events.

Fig 4, run=9047001,...,83 zoom in

Fig 5, run=9047001,...,83 full range

16) Time stability by fill of BSMD pedestals

I calculated the pedestals for every PP fill for 2008. This plot shows the pedestal per stripID and fill index. The Z-axis is the value of the pedestal. Only module 13 is shown here, but the full 2D histogram (and others) are in the attached root files.

17) Absolute gains , take1

 Goal: reco isolated gammas from bht0,1,2 -triggered events 

Method: identify isolated EM shower and match BSMD cluster energy to tower energy, as exercised earlier on 4) demonstration of absolute calib algo on single particle M-C 

INPUT events: 7,574 events triggered by barrel HT0,1,2 (id 220500 or 220510 or 220520) from run 9047029.

Cluster finder algo (sliding window, 1+3+1 strips),  smd cluster threshold set at 5 keV,  use only barrel West.

Tower cluster is defined as 3x3 patch centered on the tower pointed by the SMD peak.

Assumed BSMD calibration:  

• ene(GeV)= (adc-ped)*1e-7, one constant for all barrel
• pedestals, status tables hand tuned, some modules are disabled, but crate 4 is on

Results for ~3,8K barrel triggered events (half of 7,6K was not used)

Fig 1, Any  Eta-cluster

TOP: a) Cluster (Geant) energy;

b) Cluster RMS, peak at 0.5 is from low energy pair of isolated strips with almost equal energy

c) # of cluster per event, 

BOTTOM: X-axis is eta location, 20 bins span eta [-1,+1]. d) cluster ene vs. eta, e) cluster RMS vs. eta,

f) cluster yield vs. eta & phi, white bands are masked modules.

Fig 2, Any  Phi-cluster

see Fig 1 for details

Fig 3, Isolated EM shower

TOP: a) cluster loss on subsequent cuts, b) # of accepted EM cluster vs. eta location,

c) ADC distribution of 3x3 tower cluster centered at SMD cluster. In principle you should see there 3 edges from bht0, bht1, and bht2 trigger.

BOTTOM: X-axis is eta location, 20 bins span eta [-1,+1].d) Eta-cluster , e) phi-cluster energy, f) hit tower ADC .

Fig 4a,b, Calibration plots

2  eta location of 0.1, 0.5  of reco EM cluster  are shown in 3 panels (2x2)

1D plots are ratios of the respective 2D plots.

The  mean values of 1D fits are  relative gains of BSMDP/BSMDP and  BSMD/BTOW .

Fig 4c, Same as above, eta=0.9

18 Absolute gains, take 2

 Goal: reco isolated gammas from bht0,1,2 -triggered events 

Method: identify isolated EM shower and match BSMD cluster energy to tower energy, as exercised earlier on 4) demonstration of absolute calib algo on single particle M-C 

INPUT events: 100K events triggered by barrel HT0,1,2 (id 220500 or 220510 or 220520) from day 47, runs 1..83

Cluster finder algo (sliding window, 1+4+1 strips),  smd cluster threshold set at 10 keV,  use only barrel West, BSMD CR=4 masked out.

Tower cluster is defined as 3x3 patch centered on the tower pointed by the SMD peak, must contain 90% of energy from 5x5 cluster.

Default pedestals from offline DB used.

Assumed BSMD calibration: see table 1 column J+K  

Results for ~25K barrel triggered events (7/8 of 100K was not used)

 Fig 1 is above

Fig 2, Eta strips, any cluster

Fig 3 Phi strips, any cluster

Fig 4  isolated cluster (different sort). Plot c has huge peak at 0 - X-axis is chopped. Similar but smaller peak is in fig d. Magenta are event with bht0 and bht2 trigger.

Fig 5  isolated cluster :

Left: eta & phi plane coincidence--> works,

Right: eta & phi & tower 3x3>150 fials for modules 30-60, I have mapping problem?? 

Fig 6  Example of Eta vs. Phi  and SMD vs. Tower calibrations for eta bins 0.15, 0.5, and 0.85.

19) Absolute BSMD Calibration, table ver2.0, Isolated Gamma Algo description

 BSMD calibration algo has been developed based on M-C response of BSMD & towers to single gammas.

Executive summary:

The purpose of BSMD absolute calibration summarized at this drupal page is to reconstruct integrated energy deposit (dE) in BSMD based on measured ADC.
By integrated dE in BSMD I mean sum over few strips forming EM cluster, no matter what is the cluster shape.
This calibration method accounts for the varying absorber in front of BSMD and between eta & phi planes.
This calibration will NOT help in reconstruction:  
- full energy of EM particle which gets absorbed in BEMC ( shower development after BSMD layer does not matter for this calibration).
- partial energy of hadrons passing or showering in BEMC
- correct for the incident angle of the particle passing through detector
- saturation of BSMD readout. I only state up to which  loss (DE) the formula used in reconstruction:
      dE/GeV= (rawAdc-ped) * C0 * (1 +/- C1etaBin)
- determine sampling fraction (SF) of BSMD with high accuracy 

Below you will find brief description of the algo, side by side comparison of selected plots for M-C and real data, finally PDF with many more plots.

Proposed absolute calibration coefficients are show in table 2.

Part 1

Description of algorithm finding isolated gammas in the Barrel.

Input events

• M-C :  single gamma per event, 6 GeV ET, flat in eta, phi covers 3 barrel modules 12,13,14, geometry=y2006
• DATA: BHT0,1,2 triggered pp 2008 events from day 47, total 100K, individual triggers: 44K, 33K, 40K, respectively
  events were privately produced w/ zero suppression.

Raw data processing based on muDst

• M-C : BSMD - take geant energy deposit  ~100 keV range, towers - take ADC*0.493 to have nominal calibration of 4070 ADC=60 GeV ET.
• Data : BSMD - use private  pedestals & status tables for day 47, use custom calibration
  use BSMD calibration dE/GeV= (rawAdc-ped) * C0 * (1 +/- C1_etaBin), where '+' is for Phi-plane and '-' for eta plane, see table below
  skip strips 4 sigma above ped or with energy below 1keV, strip to strip relative gains NOT used , data from CAPs=123,124,125 were not used
   towers- take ADC as is, no offline gains correction.

Cluster finder algo (seed is sliding fixed window), tuned on M-C gamma events

• work with 150 Eta-strips per module or 900 Phi-strips at fixed eta
• all strips are marked as 'unused'

1. sum  dE in fixed window of 4 unused strips, snap at location which maximizes the energy
2. if sum below 10 keV STOP searching for clusters in this band
3. add energy from one strip on each side, mark all 1+4+1 strips as 'used'
4. compute energy weighted  cluster position and RMS
5. goto 1

This cluster finder process full Barrel West, more details about clustering is in one cluster topology , definition of 'barrel cell' 

Isolated EM shower has been selected as follows, tuned on gamma events,

• select isolated eta-cluster in every segment of 15 eta strips.
• require cluster center is at least 3 strips away from edges  of this segment (defined by eta values of 0.0, 0.1, 0.2,....0.9, 1.0)
• require there is only one phi-cluster in the same 0.1x0.1 eta.phi cell
  • require phi-cluster center is at least 3 strips from the edges
• find hit tower matching to the cross of eta & phi cluster
• sum tower energy from 3x3 patch centered on hit tower
  • require 3x3 tower  ADC sum >150 ADC (equivalent to 2.2 GeV ET, EM)
• sum tower energy from 5x5 patch centered on hit tower
  • require 3x3 sum/ 5x5 sum >0.9  
• require RMS of Phi & Eta-cluster  is above 0.2 strips

 Below is listing of all cuts used by this algo:

  useDbPed=1; // 0= use my private peds
  par_skipSpecCAP=1; // 0 means use all BSMD caps
  par_strWinLen=4; (3)  // length of integration window, total  1+4+1, in strips
  par_strEneThr=1.e-6;  (0.5e-6) // GeV, energy threshold for strip to start cluster search
  par_cluEneThr=10.0e-6; (2.0e-6) // GeV, energy threshold for cluster in window
  par_kSigPed=4.; (3) // ADC threshold
  par_isoRms=0.2;  (0.11) // minimal smd 1D cluster RMS 
  par_isoMinT3x3adc=150; //cut off for low tower response
  par_isoTowerEneR=0.9; //  ratio of 3x3/5x4 cluster
(in red are adjusted values for MIP or ET=1GeV cluster selection)  

 Table 1 Tower cluster cut defines energy of isolated gammas.

Table 2 shows assumed calibration.   

Contains relative calibration  of eta vs. phi plane, different for M-C vs. data,
and single absolute DATA normalization of the ratio of SMD (Eta+Phi) cluster energy vs. 3x3 tower cluster at eta=0.5 .

Table 3 shows what comes from data & M-C analysis using calibration from table 2.

Part 2

Side by side comparison of M-C and real data. 

Fig 2.1 BSMD "Any cluster" properties

TOP : RMS vs. energy, only Eta-plane shown, Phi-plane looks similar
BOTTOM: eta -phi distribution of found clusters. Left is M-C - only 3 modules were 'populated'. Right is data, white bands are masked modules or whole BSMD crate 4

Fig 2.2  Crucial  cuts after coincidence & isolation was required for a pair BSMD Eta & Phi clusters 

TOP :  3x3 tower energy (black), hit-tower energy (green) , if 3x3 energy below 150 ADC cluster is discarded
BOTTOM: eta dependence of 3x3 cluster energy. M-C has 'funny' calibration - there is no reason for U-shape, Y-value at eta=0.5 is correct by construction.

Fig 2.3  None-essential cuts, left by inertia 

TOP :  ratio of 3x3 tower energy to 5x5 tower energy ,  rejected if below 0.9 
BOTTOM:  RMS of Eta & Phi cluster must be above 0.2, to exclude single strip clusters

Part 3

Examples of relative response of BSMD Eta vs. Phi AFTER  calibration above is applied. 

I'm showing examples for 3 eta slices of 0.15, 0.55, 0.85 -  plots for all eta bins  are available as PDF, posted in Table 2 at the end.

The red vertical line marks the target calibration, first 2 columns are aligned by definition, 3rd column is independent measurement confirming calibration for data holds for ~40% lower gamma energy.

Fig 3.1 Phi-cluster vs. Eta cluster for eta range [0.1,0.2]. M-C on the left, data in the middle, right.

Fig 3.2 Phi-cluster vs. Eta cluster for eta range [0.4,0.5]. M-C on the left, data in the middle, right.

Fig 3.3 Phi-cluster vs. Eta cluster for eta range [0.8,0.9]. M-C on the left, data in the middle, right.

Fig 3.4 Phi-cluster vs. Eta cluster for eta range [0.9,1.0]. M-C on the left, data in remaining columns.

Part 4

Absolute response of BSMD (Eta + Phi) vs. 3x3 tower cluster,  AFTER  calibration above is applied. 

I'm showing eta slices [0.4,0.5] used to set absolute scale. The red vertical line marks the target calibration, first 2 columns are aligned by definition, 3rd column is independent measurement  for gammas with ~40% lower --> BSMD response is NOT proportional to gamma energy.

Fig 4.1 Phi-cluster vs. Eta cluster for eta range [0.4,0.5]. Only data are shown.

Fig 4.2 Absolute BSMD calibration for eta range [0.0,0.1] (top) and eta range [0.1,0.2] (bottom) . Only data are shown.
Left: Y-axis is BSMD(E+P) cluster energy, y-error is error of the mean; X-axis 3x3 tower cluster energy, x-error is RMS of distribution . Fit (magenta thick) is using only to 4 middle points - I trust them more. The MIP point is too high due to necessary SMD cluster threshold, the 7GeV point has very low stat. There is no artificial point at 0,0. Dashed line is extrapolation of the fit.
Right: only slope param (P1) from the left is used to compute full BSMD Phi & Eta-plane calibration using formulas:

slope P1_Eta=P1/2./(1-C1[xCell])/C0
slope P1_Phi=P1/2./(1+C1[xCell])/C0

Fig 4.3 Absolute BSMD calibration for eta range [0.2,0.3] (top) and eta range [0.3,0.4] (bottom) . Only data are shown, description as above.

Fig 4.4 Absolute BSMD calibration for eta range [0.4,0.5] (top) and eta range [0.5,0.6] (bottom) . Only data are shown, description as above.

Fig 4.5 Absolute BSMD calibration for eta range [0.6,0.7] (top) and eta range [0.7,0.8] (bottom) . Only data are shown, description as above.

Fig 4.6 Absolute BSMD calibration for eta range [0.8,0.9] (top) and eta range [0.9,0.95] (bottom) . Only data are shown, description as above.

I'm showing the last eta bin because it is completely different - I do not understand it at all. It was different on all plots above - just reporting here.

Fig 4.7 Expected BSMD gain dependence on HV, from  Oleg document The 2008 working HV=1430 V (same for eta & phi planes) - in the middle of the measured gain curve.

 Part 5

Possible extensions of this algo.

1. cover also East barrel (for the cross check)
2. include vertex correction in projecting SMD cluster to tower (perhaps)
3. study energy resolution of eta & phi plane - now I just compensated relative gains but the total BSMD energy is simply sum of both planes
4. last eta bin [0.9,1.0] is completely different, e.g. there is no MIP peak in the 2D fig 2.2 - BTOW gain (HV) is factor 2 or more way too high in this 2 bins 
   Justification: Inspect right plot on figures 4.2,...,4.6, in particular note at what gamma energy the blue line reaches ADC of 1000 counts. Look at this pattern vs. eta bin. On the last plot it should happen at gamma energy of ~5 GeV but in reality it is at ~10 GeV.    
5. crate 4 (unmodified) would have different gains - excluded in this analysis
6. Speculation: those multiple peaks in raws BSMD spectra (seen by others) could be correlated with BHT0,1,2 triggers
7. Scott suggestion: more detailed study of BSMD saturation could use BSMD cluster location for fiducial cut forcing gamma to be in the tower center and use just the hit tower. This needs more stats. This analysis uses 1 day of data and ends up with just ~100 entries per energy point.
8. non-linear BSMD response does not mean we can reco cluster position with accuracy better than 1 strip.

Fig 5.1 BSMD cluster energy vs. eta of the cluster.

Fig 5.2 hit tower to 3x3 cluster energy for accepted clusters. DATA, trigger BHT2, gamma ET~5.5 GeV.

Fig 5.3 hit tower to 3x3 cluster energy for accepted clusters. M-C, single gamma ET=6 GeV, flat in eta .

20 BSMD saturation

 The isolated BSMD cluster algo allows to select different range of tower energy cluster as shown in Fig.1

Fig 1. Tower energy spectrum, marked range [1.2,1.8] GeV.

In the analysis 5 energy tower slices were selected: MIP, 1.5 GeV, and around BHT0,1,2 thresholds.

Plots below show example of calibrated BSMD (eta+phi) cluster energy vs. tower cluster energy. (I added point at zero with error as for next point to constrain the fit) 

Fig 2. BSMD vs. tower energy for eta of 0.15, 0.55, and 0.85.

I'm concern we are beyond the middle of BSMD dynamic range for ~6 GeV (energy) gammas at eta 0.5. Also one may argue we se already saturation.

If we want BSMD to work up to 40 GeV ET we need to think a lot how to accomplish that.

Below is dump of one event contributing to the last dot on the middle plot. It always help me to think if I see real raw event.

BSMDE
  i=526, smdE-id=6085 rawADC=87.0 ped=71.4  adc=15.6 ene/keV=0.9
  i=527, smdE-id=6086 rawADC=427.0 ped=65.0  adc=362.0 ene/keV=20.0
  i=528, smdE-id=6087 rawADC=814.0 ped=71.8 adc=742.2 ene/keV=41.0
  i=529, smdE-id=6088 rawADC=92.0 ped=66.4  adc=25.6 ene/keV=1.4


BSMDP
  i=422, smdP-id=6086 rawADC=204.0 ped=99.3  adc=104.7 ene/keV=7.8
  i=423, smdP-id=6096 rawADC=375.0 ped=98.5  adc=276.5 ene/keV=20.3
  i=424, smdP-id=6106 rawADC=692.0 ped=100.1  adc=591.9 ene/keV=47.3


2D cluster
bsmdE CL  meanId=6086 rms=0.80 ene/keV=66.80 inTw 1632.or.1612 
bsmdP CL  meanId=6106 rms=0.68 ene/keV=75.45 inTw 1631.or.1632 

BTOW
  id=1631 rawADC=43.0 ene=0.2 ped=30.0,  adc=13.0
  id=1632 rawADC=401.0 ene=6.9 ped=32.4  adc=368.6
  id=1633 rawADC=43.0 ene=0.1 ped=35.5   adc=7.5

 gotTwId=1632
 gotTwAdc=368.6
tow3x3 sum=405.7 ADC
3x3Tene=7.3GeV 

1) BSMD-E clusters, sliding max, fixed width

 Goal: study SMDE energy resolution and cluster shape for single particles M-C

Input: single particle per event, fixed ET=6 GeV, flat eta [-0.1,1.1], flat  |phi| <5 deg, 500 eve per sample, Geant geometry y2006

Cluster finder algo (sliding fixed window), tuned on electron events

• work with 150 Eta-strips per module
• sum geant dE in fixed window of 4 strips
• maximize the sum, compute energy weighted  cluster position and RMS inside the window
• algo quits after first cluster found in given module 

Example of BSMDE response for electon:

McEve BSMD-E dump, dE is Geant energy sum from given strip, in GeV

  dE=1.61e-06  m=104 e=12 s=1 stripID=15462  

  dE=2.87e-05  m=104 e=13 s=1 stripID=15463

  dE=8.35e-06  m=104 e=14 s=1 stripID=15464

  dE=1.4e-06  m=104 e=15 s=1 stripID=15465

 ALL plots below have energy in keV , not MeV - I'll not change plots.

Results:

Fig 1. gamma - later, job crashed.

Fig 2. electron

Fig 3. pi0

Fig 4. eta

Fig 5. pi minus

Fig 6. mu minus

2) BSMDE , 1+3+1 sliding cluster finder

 Goal: test SMDE cluster finder  on single particles M-C

Input: single particle per event, fixed ET=6 GeV, flat eta [-0.1,1.1], flat  |phi| <5 deg, 5k eve per sample, Geant geometry y2006

Cluster finder algo (seed is sliding fixed window), tuned on pi0 events

• work with 150 Eta-strips per module
• all strips are marked as 'unused'
• use only module 13, covering ~1/3 of probed phase space

1. sum geant dE in fixed window of 3 unused strips, snap at location which maximizes the energy
2. if sum below 5 keV STOP searching for clusters in this module
3. add energy from one strip on each side, mark all 1+3+1 strips as 'used'
4. compute energy weighted  cluster position and RMS
5. goto 1

Example of BSMDE response for pi0:

...
strID=1932 u=0 ene/keV=0
strID=1933 u=1 ene/keV=0    +
strID=1934 u=1 ene/keV=2.0  *
strID=1935 u=1 ene/keV=48.2 *X
strID=1936 u=1 ene/keV=3.9  *
strID=1937 u=1 ene/keV=0.8  +
strID=1937 u=0 ene/keV=0
strID=1938 u=0 ene/keV=0
strID=1939 u=2 ene/keV=1.5  +
strID=1940 u=2 ene/keV=8.2  *
strID=1941 u=2 ene/keV=28.1 *X
strID=1942 u=2 ene/keV=13.8 *
strID=1943 u=2 ene/keV=4.0  +
strID=1944 u=0 ene/keV=5.6  
strID=1945 u=0 ene/keV=0.5
strID=1946 u=0 ene/keV=0
strID=1947 u=0 ene/keV=0
...

particle	any cluster found in the module, all events Fig 1a	only events with exactly 2 found clusters  Fig 1b
e-
.	Fig 2a	Fig 2b
pi0
.	Fig 3a	Fig 3b
eta

3) same algo applied to full East BSMDE,P

Smd cluster finder with sliding window of 3 strips + one strip on each end (total 5 strips) applied to all 9000 BSMDE,P strips, one gamma per event

4) demonstration of absolute calib algo on single particle M-C

 Goal: determine absolute calibration of BSMDE,P planes

Method: identify isolated EM shower and match BSMD cluster energy to tower energy

INPUT events: single particle per event, fixed ET=6 GeV, flat eta [-0.1,1.1], flat  |phi| <5 deg, 5k eve per sample, Geant geometry y2006

Cluster finder algo (seed is sliding fixed window), tuned on pi0 events

• work with 150 Eta-strips per module or 900 Phi-strips at fixed eta
• all strips are marked as 'unused'
• use only module 13, covering ~1/3 of probed phase space

1. sum geant dE in fixed window of 3 unused strips, snap at location which maximizes the energy
2. if sum below 5 keV STOP searching for clusters in this module
3. add energy from one strip on each side, mark all 1+3+1 strips as 'used'
4. compute energy weighted  cluster position and RMS
5. goto 1

This cluster finder process full Barrel West, more details about clustering is in one cluster topology , definition of 'barrel cell' 

Isolated EM shower has been selected as follows, tuned on gamma events,

• select isolated eta-cluster in every segment of 15 eta strips.
• require cluster center is at least 3 strips away from edges  of this segment (defined by eta values of 0.0, 0.1, 0.2,....0.9, 1.0)
• require there is only one phi-cluster in the same 0.1x0.1 eta.phi cell
• require phi-cluster center is at least 3 strips from the edges
• find tower matching to the cross of eta & phi cluster
• require this tower has ADC>100

Example of EM cluster passing all those criteria is below:

smdE: ene/keV= 40.6   inTw 451.or.471
 cell(15,12),   jStr=7 in xCell=15
...
id=1731  ene/keV=4.9  *
id=1732  ene/keV=34.3  X *
id=1733  ene/keV=1.5  *
...
---- end of SMDE dump


smdP: ene/keV= 28.5  inTw 471.or.472
  cell(15,12),   jStr=7 in xCell=15
...
id=1746  ene/keV=2.7  *
id=1756  ene/keV=22.0  X *
id=1766  ene/keV=3.7  *
...
---- end of SMDE dump

muDst BTOW
  id=451, m=12 rawADC=12.0 
* id=471, m=12 rawADC=643.0
  id=472, m=12 rawADC=90.0 
  id=473, m=12 rawADC=10.0 

 Results for gamma events

will be show with more details. The following PDF files contain full set of plots for all other particles.

Fig 1, Any  Eta-cluster, single gamma,  25K events

TOP: a) Cluster (Geant) energy; b) Cluster RMS, c) # of cluster per event, 

BOTTOM: X-axis is eta location, 20 bins span eta [-1,+1]. d) cluster ene vs. eta, e) cluster RMS vs. eta, f) cluster yield vs. eta & phi.

Fig 2, Any  Phi-cluster, single gamma,  25K events

see Fig 1 for details

Fig 3, Isolated EM shower, single gamma,  90K events

TOP: a) cluster loss on subsequent cuts, b) # of accepted EM cluster vs. eta location, c) ADC distribution of hit tower (some wired gains are in default M-C), tower ADC is in ET

BOTTOM: X-axis is eta location, 20 bins span eta [-1,+1]. d) Eta-cluster , e) phi-cluster energy, f) hit tower ADC .

Fig 4, Calibration plots, single gamma,  90K events.

3  eta location of 0.1, 0.5, 0.9 of reco EM cluster  are shown in 3 panels (2x2)

1D plots are ratios of the respective 2D plots.

The  mean values of 1D fits are  relative gains of BSMDP/BSMDP and  BSMD/BTOW , determine for 10 slice in pseudorapidity. Game is over :).

Fig 5, Same as above, eta=0.1, single pi0, 50K events.

Fig 6, Same as above, eta=0.1, single pi minus, 50K events.

Below are PDF plots for all particles:

Correction - label on the X-axis for 1D plots is not correct. I did not apply log10() - a regular ratio is shown, sorry.

5) Evaluation of BSMD dynamic range needed for the W program at STAR, ver 1.0

M-C  study of BSMD response to high energy electrons

Attachment 1:

Fig 1 & 2  reminds actual (pp data based) calibration for 2 eta location of 0.1 and 0.8, presented earlier.

Table 1 shows  M-C simulation of average cluster energy (deposit in BSMD plane), its spread, and  width as function of electron ET, separately for eta- & phi-planes of BSMD.
As expected, BSMD sampling fraction (SF, red column)  is not constant but drops with energy of electron.
The BSMD SF(ET) deviates from constant by less then 20% - it is a small effect.

Fig 3,4,5 show expected BSMD response to M-C electrons with ET of 6,20, and 40 GeV. Only for the lowest energy  the majority of EM showers fit in to the dynamic range of BSMD, which ends for energy deposit of about 60 keV per plane.
I was trying to be generous and draw the red line at DE~90 keV .
The rms of BSMD cluster is about 0.5 strips, so majority of energy is measured by just 2 strips (amplifiers). Such narrow cluster lowers  saturation threshold.

Fig 6, shows BSMD cluster energy for PYTHIA W-events.
Fig 7 shows similar response to PYTHIA QCD events.

Compare area marked with red oval - there is strong correlation between BSMD energy and electron energy and would be not wise to forgo it in the e/h algo.  

Conclusion:

The attached slides show 2008 HV setting of BSMD would lead to full saturation of BSMD response for electrons from W decay with ET as low as 20 GeV , i.e. would reduce BSDM dynamic range to 1 bit.0

For the reference:

* absolute BSMD calibration based on 2008 pp data.
http://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/subsys/bemc/calibrations/bsmd/2008-bsmd-calibration/19-isolated-gamma-algo-description-set-2-0

* current BSMD HV are set very high , leading to saturation of BSMD at gamma energy of 7-10 GeV, depending on eta and plane. (Lets ignore difference between E & ET for this discussion, for now).
http://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/subsys/bemc/calibrations/bsmd/2008-bsmd-calibration/20-bsmd-saturation

*  STAR priorities for 2009 pp run presented at Apex: http://www.c-ad.bnl.gov/APEX/APEXWorkshop2008/talks/Dunlop_Star_Apex_2008.pdf

* Attachment 2,3 show BSMD-E, -P response for electrons with  ET: 4,6,8,10,20,30,40,50 GeV and to Pythia W, QCD events (in this order)

BSMD Status Table in run10 AuAu200GeV runs

==========

We started this task by looking at BSMD in Run 10 with some MuDst files, and found the pedestals probably need to be QA-ed as well.

http://www.star.bnl.gov/HyperNews-star/get/emc2/3500.html

and

http://www.star.bnl.gov/HyperNews-star/get/emc2/3515.html

==========

Then we started to look for Non-zero-suppressed BSMD data, and found that we have to run through the daq files to produce the NZS data files to produce the NZS data. The daq files are stored on HPSS, and we have to transfer them onto RCF. The transferred daq files were then made into root files with Willim's BSMD online monitering codes.

http://www.star.bnl.gov/HyperNews-star/get/emc2/3533.html

==========

We decided to use same critiria and status codes as Willim used for run09 pp500GeV.

http://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog-entry/wleight/2009/may/13/bsmd-status-cuts-and-parameters

==========

We discovered that a modification is needed to the critiria of code bit 3 (the ratio of the integral over a window to the integral over all, i.e. the pedestal integral ratio) We found about half of the BSMD strips fail the criteria of this ratio > 0.95, but nearly most of them satisfy ratio > 0.90, so the critiria is loosed to 0.90. We think this is a reasonable difference between run09 pp and run10 AuAu collisions.

http://www.star.bnl.gov/HyperNews-star/get/emc2/3546/1/1.html

==========

The daq files are huge in size, on the order of TB for one day. In order to not disturb the run10 data production, we had to only copy 1/10~1/20 of the daq files.

http://www.star.bnl.gov/HyperNews-star/get/emc2/3589/2.html

==========

After a long period of transffering and root files making, almost all the days between Jan/02/2010 and Mar/17/2010 are done.

http://www.star.bnl.gov/HyperNews-star/get/emc2/3601.html

We found that another criteria has to be modified, because we use NZS data for the QA of the tail of ADC spectrum. The definition of the tail ranges and the limits are adjusted. Three ranges of the tail part of ADC are defined,

Range 1:peak+6*rms to peak+6*rms+50 channels
Range 2:6*rms+50 channels to 6*rms+150 channels
Range 3:6*rms+150 channels to 6*rms+350 channels

The entries (hits) in these three ranges are counted, and the ratios to all the entries in the whole spectrum are calculated. The limits for good ratios are selected based on the ratios distribution trough out all the days. They are

@font-face {
font-family: "Cambria";
}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }

Range 1: 3.35~80 x0.001

Range 2: 0.95~40 x0.001

Range 3: 0.25 ~ 20 x0.001

See the attached newlimits.docx for more details and plots.

Also, bit 0 of the status code is supposed to indicate whether a channel is bad or not. Not every problem is fatal, i.e cause the channel to be regarded as bad.

Originally, only if all the 3 ratios are beyond the limits, a fetal condition is met; we addjusted this to be if more than one, i.e. >=2, out of the 3 ratios are beyond the limits, a fetal condition is met. One can also treat any channel with a code not equal to 1 as bad, regardless what the bit 0 is.

==========

A final report with sample codes in one day was presented to and approved by EMC2 group.

http://www.star.bnl.gov/HyperNews-star/get/emc2/3637/1.html

==========

Note: The map file used in bsmd montoring in run10 was with some inconsistence with the acctual hardware. An after-burn map correction was done by the EMC software coordinator, Justin.

Note: Up to now, no corrections are made to pedestals. The bad strips caused by bad pedestals are rouphly 1/3~1/4 of all the bad strips.

Wenqin Xu

16Feb2011

01 Status of BSMDE,P at the end of pp 500 GeV run, April of 2009

Summary of BSMD performance on April 6. Input : 200K events tagged by L2W clust ET>13 GeV, days 85-94, ~all events, only ZS data are shown.

Attached PDFs shows zoom in spectra for individual modules. 1st page is summary, next I show 3 modules per row, 5 rows per page. Even pages shows zoom-in for low ADC<100, odd pages shows full ADC scale. Common maxZ=1000 is used for all plots , except page 1. 

02 offline QA of BSMD pp 500, ver1 (Willie+Jan)

 BSMD QA algorithm and results for pp 500, tune optimized for high energy  energy response

1. QA method, details are given in Willie's blog
   Fig 1. Typical good/bad strips from the E-plane and with wide pedestals. 
   
   • Input: all available events from fills 10399, 10402, 10403, 10404, 10407, 10412, 10415 added together
   • evaluate shape of pedestal residua for  NZS data captured on-line by Willie's daq reader  (Blue filled histo)
   • evaluate yield in high energy range (ADC ~300,500,800) using ZS data from L2W triggered events (Magenta line-only)
   • ignored: satellite spikes around  pedestal at ADC ~32, those come from correlated noise and (most likely) such events will be discarded.
   • Example of such spectra for few strips is shown in fig 1.
   • Encoding of BSMD status bits extends existing convention to use LSB=1 for good strips and LSB=0 for bad strips. We used bits 1,2,3 to tag pedestal problems and bits 5,6,7 to tag yield problems. 
   • More plots with individual strips is in attachment A,B,C,D.
2. Bad strip is defined as having : bad pedestal or god pedestal but no yield above it.
   
   Fig 2. Distribution of bad strips from both planes, details about each plane separately is in attachment E.
   
3. The remaining issues:
   1. of tagging 'spiked' events (or modules?) needs to be investigated.
   2. study time dependence
4. For the reference this directory contains PDF files with plots from all 120 BSMD modules.

Fig 3. # of bad strips per module.

03 correlated, small ADC spikes in BSMD (Jan)

Study of small ADC spikes in BSMD 

Input:

•  all available events from fills 10399, 10402, 10403, 10404, 10407, 10412, 10415 added together
• pedestal residua for  NZS data captured on-line by Willie's daq reader  (Blue filled histo)
•  ZS data from L2W triggered events (Magenta line-only)

The following plots support those observation:

1. spikes are symmetric on both sides of pedestals peak, separated by 2^N ADC counts, narrower than pedestal peak, (Fig1)
2. spikes are correlated in even ID (or odd) strips the same plane, correlation is local, Fig 2 
3. spikes are correlated between P-plane & E-plane strips, Fig 3
4. energy deposit in BSMD increases probability of spikes, see peak/valley for blue vs. magenta in fig 1b.
5. bands are visible at larger ADC, as shown by Oleg, not sure what data and how many events, fig 4 
6. perhaps fig 1c shows yet another pathology, because it does not obey odd/even rule in fig 1a & 1b.

Fig 1a. Example of spikes delADC=16, in the vicinity of strip 1525-P, all strips from module 11 are shown in attachment A.

Fig 1b. Example of spikes delADC=32, in the vicinity of strip 1977-P, all strips from module 14 are shown in attachment B, module 22 looks similar.

Fig 1c. Example of spikes delADC=128, in the vicinity of strip 4562-P, all strips from module 31 are shown in attachment C, modules 51,52,57  look similar

Fig 2. Phi-Phi plane correlation of P-strip 1979 with (odd)  P-strips: 1977..1994. Attachment D contains correlation of P-strips [1977-80] with  24  strips in proximity. 

Fig 3. Phi-Eta plane correlation of P-strip 1979 with (odd)  E-strips: 1977..1994. Attachment E contains correlation of P-strips [1977-80] with  24  strips in proximity. 

Fig 4.Oleg observed this stripes in raw BSMD ADC spectrum, not sure what data.

2009 BSMD Relative Gains Information

The pdf posted here has a good overview of the computation of the slope for each strip, discussing the method and the various ways in which strips were marked as bad.  This page discusses the computation of the actual relative gains and statuses that went into the database.

The code used to compute the relative gains is archived at /star/institutions/mit/wleight/archive/bsmdRelGains2009/.

DELETE - Run 9 BSMD Status Update 3 (4/24)

After looking more closely at the crate 1 channels I was forced to make serious revisions to status bit 2 from the previous update.  The new status bit 2 test is as follows:

First, I scan through the strip ADC distribution looking for peaks.  A peak is defined as a channel that is greater than or equal to the four or two channels to either side (if the sigma of the fit to the strip ADC distribution is greater than or less than six, respectively), has a content that is greater than 5% of the maximum of the strip ADC distribution, and has a depth greater than 5% of the maximum of the strip ADC distribution.  The depth is calculated by first calculating the difference between the peak content and the channel content for each of the four or two channels on either side of the peak.  The maximum of these differences is obtained for the left and right sides separately, and the depth is then equal to the lesser of these two maxima.

If the strip has more than one peak and the maximum of the depths is greater than 20% of the maximum of the strip ADC distribution, then the strip is given bad status 2.  If the strip has only one peak (which is then necessarily the maximum of the entire distribution) but the distance between that peak and the peak obtained from the gaussian fit is greater than 75% of the sigma from the gaussian fit, the strip is given bad status 2 as well.  Attached is a pdf that has only the pedestal plots for all channels from crate 1.

Edit: I forgot that the BSMD crates don't increase with module number: what is labeled as crate 1 is actually crate 2, as that is the crate that has the first 15 modules, and the attachment labeled as crate 2 is the 2nd 15 modules and so actually crate 1.

2nd edit: This is now out of date, please see the new update.

DELETE - Run 9 BSMD Status Update 4 (4/27)

After further investigations -- specifically looking at strips that had a significant secondary peak, entirely separated from the main peak, with a max of ~40, which were not being caught by my cuts -- I have again revised my criteria for status bit 2.  Again, I begin by looking for peaks.  If a peak candidate is less than three sigma from the peak of the strip ADC distribution (strip and peak both taken from the gaussian fit), the same cuts are imposed: the candidate must be greater than the four (if sigma>6) or two (if sigma<6) channels on on either side of it, it's content must be greater than 5% of the maximum of the strip ADC distribution, and the depth must be at least 5% of the maximum of the strip ADC distribution.  If the strip has two such peaks with the maximum of the depths greater than 20% of the maximum of the strip ADC distribution, or has only one peak but that peak is at least one sigma away from gaussian fit peak, it is given bad status 2.  Note the only change here is that the previously a strip with only one peak could be marked bad if it was 75% of sigma away from the gaussian fit peak.

Most of the changes have to do with candidates that are at least three sigma from the gaussian fit peak.  In this case the cuts are relaxed: the bin content need only be .5% of the max, not 5%, though it still must be at least 10, and the peak depth is required to only be at least 5% of the peak itself, not of the max.  A more than three-sigma peak has the same requirements for the number of channels it must be greater than: however, none of those channels can have value 0.  Any strip with a candidate that passes these criteria is automatically given bad status 2. 

Pdfs for crates 1 and 2 are attached (but note that the crate 1 and crate 2 pdfs contain the first and second 15 modules, respectively, and therefore crate 1 should actually be labeled crate 2 and crate 2 is really crate 4).

DELETE - Run 9 BSMD Status Update 5 (4/30)

Edited on 5/1 to reflecte new status bit assigments for bits 3 and 4.

The current BSMD status bits are as follows:

Bit 2: Bad pedestal peak/multiple pedestal peaks.  This is described in more detail here.  Examples can be found in crate2_ped.pdf pp 207 and 314 and crate4_ped.pdf p 133.

Bit 3: Pedestal peak has bad sigma, sigma<1 or sigma >15

Bit 4: Chi squared value from gaussian fit is greater than 1000 (i.e., pedestal has a funny shape)

Bit 5: Strip is exactly identical to the previous strip

Bit 6: The ratio of the integral of channels 300-500 to the total integral does not fall between .0001 and .02

Bit 7: The ratio of the integral of channels 500-800 to the total integral does not fall between .00004 and .02

Bit 8: The ratio of the integral of channels greater than 800 to the total integral does not fall between .00005 and .02

Note that this means that dead channels have status 111xxxx0->448 (or greater).

The attached pdfs crate2 and crate4.pdf have the pedestal distributions, taken from NZS data, and the overall distributions, taken from ZS L2W data, overlayed; crate2_ped and crate4_ped.pdf have only the pedestal distributions.  The NZS data used was taken from my monitoring for fills 10415-10489.  The L2W data came from fills 10383-10507.  Additionally, at the beginning of each module is a summary page that has plotted the distributions for the ratios used to determine bad status bits 6, 7, and 8, and the overal distribution of status vs. strip for eta and phi.

Finally, there are a couple of possible new problems.  Page 18 in crate4_ped.pdf has several examples of pedestal distributions that have shoulders.  Page 20 has a few examples of pedestal distributions with a small, skinny peak perched on top of a large, broad distribution.  At the moment I have no bad status bit for either of these, and any peak with either of these features would almost certainly not be marked bad (even though I did manage to catch one of the ones on page 20).

Edit: Scott suggested during the phone meeting today that perhaps the problem of a small peak on a broad distribution was due to time variation of the pedestal width, and in the plot below you can see that he was correct: the strip initially has an extremely wide pedestal which then shrinks down suddenly.  Futhermore, looking at one of the strips that had a sort of shoulder to it, you can see that this is just a less-pronounced version of the double peak problem seen before: the pedestal goes up by 10 for a much shorter time frame, thus producing a shoulder rather than a second peak.  This suggests that, as Scott said, these channels should still be usable, and that once we begin breaking status down by time these funny shapes should be less of a problem.

DELETE - Run 9 BSMD Status Update 6 (5/4)

As Matt says that the maximum status is 255, I have dropped the old status bit 5 as (it was unused).  Also, I have loosened the dead strip cuts based on looking at module 55 (see pages 203 or 205 in the attached crate1.pdf, for instance).  The status bits are now as follows:

Bit 2: Bad pedestal peak/multiple pedestal peaks.

Bit 3: Pedestal peak has bad sigma, sigma<1 or sigma >15

Bit 4: Chi squared value from gaussian fit is greater than 1000 (this applies only for strips that do not have bad status 2 already)

Bit 5: The ratio of the integral of channels 300-500 to the total integral does not fall between .0005 and .02

Bit 6: The ratio of the integral of channels 500-800 to the total integral does not fall between .0002 and .02

Bit 7: The ratio of the integral of channels greater than 800 to the total integral does not fall between .0002 and .02

Below is a plot of status vs. eta and phi for BSMDE and BSMDP strips.  Note that strips with all three of bits 5, 6, 7 bad (generally, dead strips) are given the value 8 in this plot to distinguish them from strips that may have just one of those bits bad.  As some strips may have more than one bad status bit, for clarity I ranked the potential bad statuses in the order 2, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 (i.e., approximately in order of importance) and plotted for each strip only the highest-ranked status.

Additionally, I found a problem I had not seen before.  On page 207 of the attached crate1.pdf you can see that in the L2W data some strips have a large peak out in the tail of the ADC distribution.  However, as all these strips are caught by my code it's not a serious problem.

Final Run 9 200 GeV BSMD Status

In essence, the 200 GeV status tables were calculated the same way as the 500 GeV tables were.  Please see here for details.

Final Run 9 500 GeV BSMD Status - Willie Leight

BSMD Pedestals and Status for Run 9 pp 500 Data (June 2009, uploaded to offline DB)

The BSMD status analysis for the 500 GeV data proceeds as follows:

1. Each strip is assigned a status for the whole run from an analysis of fills 10399, 10402, 10403, 10404, 10407, 10412, and 10415.  Pedestals are analyzed using NZS data taken by the BSMD online monitoring, which reads NZS data from evp and subtracts off pedestals which are updated each time a new BSMD pedestal run is taken.  Because NZS data is essentially minbias, high energy tails are analyzed using L2W-triggered data.  Status bits are described in detail here. 
2. Once each strip has an assigned status, those strips that are not marked as bad move on to the second step.  Here the strips are examined fill-by-fill: for each fill the strip pedestal is QAed by re-applying the pedestal cuts (but not the tail cuts due to lack of statistics), and a new status for that fill is determined.
3. Next, a pedestal correction is calculated.  The pedestal correction is just the MPV of the pedestal residua if the MPV is greater than the RMS of the pedestal residua. 
4. Finally, we upload a number of tables to the database: for each BSMD plane there is one that contains a universal status for every strip, one for each fill containing a status for every strip, and one for each fill containing the RMS and pedestal correction for every strip. 

Attached is a pdf that presents the results of this study, including examples.

All code and root files are archived at /star/institutions/mit/wleight/archive/2009-pp500-bsmdStatus/.

Table 1: Pedestal correction, RMS, and status vs. fill for each module (Crates 1-4 are the West Barrel)

Table 2: BSMD spectra for 150 eta and 150 phi strips used for status determination for each module (for fills listed above).  Bad strips are identified with the status (in hex): strips with red status are marked bad, strips with green failed a cut but are not necessarily bad.  Note that these spectra are shifted up by 100 on the X-axis so that the pedestal is centered around 100 rather than 0.

Table 3: Fills used in this study.

#      Fill        Date          Begin run      End run   LT/pb
1 F10383 2009-03-18 R10076134 R10076161 0.00
2 F10398 2009-03-20 R10078076 R10079017 0.08
3 F10399 2009-03-20 R10079027 R10079086 0.22
4 F10402 2009-03-21 R10079129 R10079139 0.04
5 F10403 2009-03-21 R10080019 R10080022 0.01
6 F10404 2009-03-22 R10080039 R10080081 0.09
7 F10407 2009-03-22 R10081007 R10081056 0.05
8 F10412 2009-03-23 R10081096 R10082095 0.23
9 F10415 2009-03-24 R10083013 R10083058 0.24
10 F10426 2009-03-25 R10084005 R10084024 0.11
11 F10434 2009-03-26 R10085016 R10085039 0.18
12 F10439 2009-03-27 R10085096 R10086046 0.26
13 F10448 2009-03-28 R10087001 R10087041 0.29
14 F10449 2009-03-28 R10087051 R10087097 0.32
15 F10450 2009-03-29 R10087110 R10088036 0.29*
16 F10454 2009-03-29 R10088058 R10088085 0.15*
17 F10455 2009-03-30 R10088096 R10089023 0.29*
18 F10463 2009-03-31 R10089079 R10090027 0.20*
19 F10464 2009-03-31 R10090037 R10090047 0.08*
20 F10465 2009-03-31 R10090071 R10090112 0.13*
21 F10471 2009-04-02 R10091089 R10092050 0.30
22 F10476 2009-04-03 R10092084 R10093036 0.28
23 F10478 2009-04-03 R10093057 R10093085 0.08
24 F10482 2009-04-04 R10093110 R10094024 0.55
25 F10486 2009-04-05 R10094063 R10094099 0.52
26 F10490 2009-04-05 R10095019 R10095057 0.40
27 F10494 2009-04-06 R10095120 R10096027 0.61
28 F10505 2009-04-07 R10096139 R10097045 0.39
29 F10507 2009-04-08 R10097086 R10097153 0.29
30 F10508 2009-04-08 R10098029 R10098046 0.17
31 F10517 2009-04-09 R10099020 R10099078 0.32**
32 F10525 2009-04-10 R10099185 R10100032 0.68
33 F10526 2009-04-10 R10100049 R10100098 0.37
34 F10527 2009-04-11 R10100164 R10101020 0.82
35 F10528 2009-04-11 R10101028 R10101040 0.31
36 F10531 2009-04-12 R10101059 R10102003 0.86
37 F10532 2009-04-12 R10102031 R10102070 0.76
38 F10535 2009-04-13 R10102094 R10103018 0.86
39 F10536 2009-04-13 R10103027 R10103046 0.43

* Crate 2 was off for this fill

** This fill had no BSMD data

Final Run 9 BSMD Absolute Calibration

The Run 9 BSMD absolute calibration was made using few-GeV TPC-identified electrons from pp500 running, and has two pieces.  The first is a new CALIBRATION table in the database which will be used in the EMC slow simulator to improve the agreement of of MC ADC with data.  This table starts by combining the previously-determined strip-by-strip relative gains with the existing values in the table.  This is then multiplied by the ratio of the slope of a linear fit to the mean cluster ADC distribution from few-GeV isolated data electrons to the same slope in simulated electrons, where the slope is calculated in four different eta bins.  The second piece is a new GAIN table in the database which allows ADC values to be converted to energy deposited in the BSMD.  This table was determined by combining the strip-by-strip relative gains with a similar ratio as above, but using mean cluster energy deposited in the BSMD instead of reconstructed ADC values (the electron samples used for data and MC were the same) and it is calculated in ten eta bins instead of four.  Both tables are currently in the database with flavor "Wbose2": it is hoped that eventually the CALIBRATION table will migrate to flavor "ofl", but the GAIN table will have to remain "Wbose2" because it is currently used (with values all equal to 1) in some codes to determine the change in the BSMD calibration over time.  While producing two tables which are in some ways overlapping and one of which can never be flavor "ofl" is not an ideal solution, it allows us to avoid making any modifications to currently existing code (in particular the StEmcSimulator) and allows people who prefer to think of reconstructed energy from BSMD ADCs as being the full particle energy instead of the energy deposited in the BSMD to continue as they were with no change.  For more details, please see:

1. Overview of the method

2. Final cut list and data-MC comparison

3. Overall Summary

Additionally, a link to the 2009 BSMD Calibration note will be added here once it is completed.

See also a brief presentation on why we chose not to include the BSMD gas pressure in our analysis.

Run 9 BSMD Status Update 1 (4/19)

I use two datasets to QA BSMD channels: zero-suppressed data from L2W events (fills 10383-10507) and non-zero-suppressed data from online monitoring (fills 10436-10507) (note that at the moment I am not examining the time dependence of BSMD status).  NZS data is used to QA the pedestal peak of a channel, while high-energy ZS data is used to QA the tail.

Next, the ZS data are compared to the ZS data from the previous channel to check for copycat channels.  Then three quantities are calculated: the ratios of the integrals from 300-500, 500-800, and 800-the end of the spectrum to the total integral of the channel.  Each of these quantities must then fall within the following cuts: .0001-.02, .00004-.02, and .00005-.02 respectively.  Here is a sample distribution:

Also, the spectra for the strips in module 3, with status, are attached.  I have not had a chance to look closely at any other modules yet.

BSMD Wire Support Effects on GAIN

Here is a note from Oleg Tsai (and attached file "wiresup.pdf" below) concerning source
measurements of the BSMD gain behavior near the nylon wire supports:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, tsai@physics.ucla.edu wrote:

>    Attached plot will help you to understand what you see close to
>  strips 58 and 105. There are two nylon wire supports in the chamber
>  at distances 34.882" and 69.213" from the (eta=0 end of the chamber,
>  not from the real eta 0). Gain drops near these supports. You can
>  see this in your plots also. The attached plot shows counting rate vs
>  strip id for a typical chamber. Don't pay attention to channels
>  near 0 and 150 - these effects are due to particular way co60 source
>  was collimated (counting profile was close to 0.1/0.2/0.4/0.2/0.1)
>  0.4 in central strip. From that I estimated that eta strips
>  56-60 and 104-107 should have calib. coefficients
>  (.95,.813,.875,.971,.984) (.99,.89,.84,.970.), I don't remember
>  if I was using counting rate vs HV to derive these numbers...
>  (this is my third and final attempt :-))
>

MIP check on 2006 Slope Calibration

2006_mip-.pdf

2006_mip.txt

~300k events processed using fastOffline:
Run 7079034 ~189K
Run 7079035 ~115K

Number of events with nonzero primary tracks = 109k / 309k = 35%

Still a few problems with pedestal widths in the database, although now they appear to be restricted to id > 4200. If I don't cut on adc>2*rms, the software id distribution of MIPs looks pretty isotropic:

The distribution of primary tracks also looks a lot better:

I was able to calculate MIP gains for each of the 40 eta-rings. The plot at the top fits a line to the full-scale transverse energies extracted from the gains (excluding the outer two eta-rings on each side). For the error calculations I used the error on the extraction of the mean of the MIP ADC peak and propagated this through the calculation. This is not exactly correct, but it's a pretty close approximation. In a couple of cases the error was exceedingly small (10^-5 ADC counts), so I forced it to an error of 1 GeV (the fit failed if I didn't).

As you can see in the text file, an error of 1 ADC in the MIP peak leads to an error of 3 GeV in the full-scale transverse energy. Therefore I would say that pedestal fluctuations (1-2 ADCs) give an additional error of 5 GeV to my calculations, which means that the majority of these eta-rings are consistent with a 60 GeV full-scale.

Conclusions:

• A straight-line fit yields 56 GeV as the average full-scale transverse energy of the towers
• We have enough stats; errors are dominated by pedestal fluctuations leading to a 5 GeV uncertainty
• Tower response is flat in E_t across eta-rings (excluding last two rings where MIPs fail)
• Good job Stephen and Oleg!

The First Attempt

Note: The first attempt at this analysis was plagued by poor TPC tracking and also problems with corrupted BTOW pedestal widths in the database. I'm including the content of the original page here just to document those problems.

250k events processed using fastOffline:

Run 7069023 100K
Run 7069024 100K
Run 7069025 50K

Number of events with nGlobalTracks > 0 = 30166 (12%)

On the left you see the software id distribution of slope candidates (adc-ped>3*rms, no tracking cuts). There's a sharp cutoff at id==1800. But before you go blaming the BEMC for the missing MIPs, the plot on the right shows eta-phi distribution of global tracks without any EMC coincidence. The hot region in red corresponds to 0<id<1800:

As it turns out, the missing slope candidates are likely due to wide pedestals. The pedestal values look fine, but if I plot pedrms for id<1800 and id>1800 using the slope candidates that did survive:

Is it possible that the TPC track distribution is connected to this problem?

First Iteration

Second Iteration

Third Iteration

Fourth Iteration

Fifth Iteration

Seventh Iteration