1: %\documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \documentclass{elsart}
3:
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: \usepackage{amsmath,bm}
6: \usepackage{amscd}
7: \usepackage{amssymb}
8: \usepackage{floatflt}
9: \usepackage{rotating}
10: %\usepackage{gensymb}
11: \usepackage{wrapfig}
12: %
13: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1.0} % These three commands assure that floats
14: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1.0} % (figures, tables) can cover a whole page
15: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.0} % and no text is required
16: %
17: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}
18: \input{abbrevia}
19:
20: \begin{document}
21: \begin{frontmatter}
22: %
23: \bibliographystyle{elsart-num}
24: %
25: \title{Energy Linearity and Resolution of the
26: ATLAS Electromagnetic Barrel Calorimeter in an Electron Test-Beam
27: }
28:
29: %\author[Bla]{ATLAS Electromagnetic Barrel Calorimeter Collaboration}
30: %
31: \author[Annecy]{M.~Aharrouche},
32: \author[Annecy]{J.~Colas},
33: \author[Annecy]{L.~Di Ciaccio},
34: \author[Annecy]{M.~El~Kacimi\thanksref{ElKacimi}},
35: \author[Annecy]{O.~Gaumer},
36: \author[Annecy]{M.~Gouan\`ere},
37: \author[Annecy]{D.~Goujdami\thanksref{ElKacimi}},
38: \author[Annecy]{R.~Lafaye},
39: \author[Annecy]{S.~Laplace},
40: \author[Annecy]{C.~Le Maner},
41: \author[Annecy]{L.~Neukermans},
42: \author[Annecy]{P.~Perrodo},
43: \author[Annecy]{L.~Poggioli},
44: \author[Annecy]{D.~Prieur},
45: \author[Annecy]{H.~Przysiezniak},
46: \author[Annecy]{G.~Sauvage},
47: \author[Annecy]{F.~Tarrade},
48: \author[Annecy]{I.~Wingerter-Seez},
49: \author[Annecy]{R.~Zitoun},
50: \author[Brookhaven]{F.~Lanni},
51: \author[Brookhaven]{H.~Ma},
52: \author[Brookhaven]{S.~Rajagopalan},
53: \author[Brookhaven]{S.~Rescia},
54: \author[Brookhaven]{H.~Takai},
55: \author[Casablanca]{A.~Belymam},
56: \author[Casablanca]{D.~Benchekroun},
57: \author[Casablanca]{M.~Hakimi},
58: \author[Casablanca]{A.~Hoummada},
59: \author[Dallas]{E.~Barberio\thanksref{Barberio}},
60: \author[Dallas]{Y.S.~Gao},
61: \author[Dallas]{L.~Lu},
62: \author[Dallas]{R. Stroynowski},
63: \author[CERN]{M.~Aleksa},
64: \author[CERN]{J.~Beck Hansen\thanksref{Beck}},
65: \author[CERN]{T.~Carli\thanksref{cauthor}},
66: \author[CERN]{I.~Efthymiopoulos},
67: \author[CERN]{P.~Fassnacht},
68: \author[CERN]{F.~Follin},
69: \author[CERN]{F.~Gianotti},
70: \author[CERN]{L.~Hervas},
71: \author[CERN]{W.~Lampl},
72: \author[Grenoble]{J.~Collot},
73: \author[Grenoble]{J.Y.~Hostachy},
74: \author[Grenoble]{F.~Ledroit-Guillon},
75: \author[Grenoble]{P.~Martin},
76: \author[Grenoble]{F.~Ohlsson-Malek},
77: \author[Grenoble]{S. Saboumazrag},
78: \author[Nevis]{M.~Leltchouk},
79: \author[Nevis]{J.A.~Parsons},
80: \author[Nevis]{M.~Seman},
81: \author[Nevis]{S.~Simion},
82: \author[Milano]{D.~Banfi}
83: \author[Milano]{L.~Carminati},
84: \author[Milano]{D.~Cavalli},
85: \author[Milano]{G.~ Costa},
86: \author[Milano]{M.~Delmastro},
87: \author[Milano]{M.~Fanti},
88: \author[Milano]{L.~Mandelli},
89: \author[Milano]{M.~Mazzanti},
90: \author[Milano]{G.~F.~Tartarelli},
91: \author[Orsay]{C.~Bourdarios},
92: \author[Orsay]{L.~Fayard},
93: \author[Orsay]{D.~Fournier},
94: \author[Orsay]{G.~Graziani},
95: \author[Orsay]{S.~Hassani},
96: \author[Orsay]{L.~Iconomidou-Fayard},
97: \author[Orsay]{M.~Kado},
98: \author[Orsay]{M.~Lechowski},
99: \author[Orsay]{M.~Lelas},
100: \author[Orsay]{G.~Parrour},
101: \author[Orsay]{P.~Puzo},
102: \author[Orsay]{D.~Rousseau},
103: \author[Orsay]{R.~Sacco\thanksref{Sacco}},
104: \author[Orsay]{L.~Serin},
105: \author[Orsay]{G.~Unal},
106: \author[Orsay]{D.~Zerwas},
107: \author[Jussieu]{A.~Camard},
108: \author[Jussieu]{D.~Lacour},
109: \author[Jussieu]{B.~Laforge},
110: \author[Jussieu]{I.~Nikolic-Audit},
111: \author[Jussieu]{Ph.~Schwemling},
112: \author[Rabat1]{H.~Ghazlane},
113: \author[Rabat]{R.~Cherkaoui El Moursli},
114: \author[Rabat]{A.~Idrissi Fakhr-Eddine},
115: \author[Saclay]{M.~Boonekamp},
116: \author[Saclay]{N.~Kerschen},
117: \author[Saclay]{B.~Mansouli\'{e}},
118: \author[Saclay]{P.~Meyer},
119: \author[Saclay]{J.~Schwindling},
120: \author[Stockholm]{B.~Lund-Jensen},
121: \author[Stockholm]{Y.~Tayalati}
122: %
123: \address[Annecy]{Laboratoire de Physique de Particules (LAPP),
124: IN2P3-CNRS, F-74941~Annecy-le-Vieux~Cedex, France.}
125: \address[Brookhaven]{Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Upton,
126: NY~11973-5000, USA.}
127: \address[Casablanca]{Facult\'{e} des Sciences A\"{\i}n Chock, Casablanca,
128: Morocco.}
129: \address[Dallas]{Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275-0175,
130: USA.}
131: \address[CERN]{European Laboratory for Particle Physics (CERN),
132: CH-1211~Geneva~23, Switzerland.}
133: \address[Grenoble]{Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie,
134: Universit\'e Joseph Fourier, IN2P3-CNRS, F-38026~Grenoble, France.}
135: \address[Nevis]{Nevis Laboratories, Columbia University, Irvington,
136: NY~10533, USA.}
137: \address[Milano]{Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`{a} di Milano and
138: INFN, I-20133~Milano, Italy.}
139: \address[Orsay]{Laboratoire de l'Acc\'{e}l\'{e}rateur Lin\'{e}aire,
140: Universit\'{e} de Paris-Sud, IN2P3-CNRS, F-91898~Orsay~Cedex, France.}
141: \address[Jussieu]{Universit\'es Paris VI et VII, Laboratoire de Physique
142: Nucl\'eaire et de Hautes Energies, F-75252 Paris, France.}
143: \address[Rabat1]{Facult\'e des Sciences and
144: Centre National de l'\'Energie des Sciences et des Techniques
145: Nucl\'eaires, Rabat, Morocco.}
146: \address[Rabat]{Universit\'e Mohamed V, Facult\'e des Sciences, Rabat, Morocco.}
147: \address[Saclay]{CEA, DAPNIA/Service de Physique des Particules,
148: CE-Saclay, F-91191~Gif-sur-Yvette~Cedex, France.}
149: \address[Stockholm]{Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.}
150:
151: \thanks[Barberio]{Now at university of Melbourne, Australia.}
152: \thanks[ElKacimi]{Visitor from LPHEA, FSSM-Marrakech (Morroco).}
153: \thanks[Beck]{Now at Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.}
154: %\thanks[Deceased]{Deceased.}
155: \thanks[cauthor]{E-mail: Tancredi.Carli@cern.ch.}
156: \thanks[Sacco]{Now at Queen Mary, University of London.}
157:
158:
159: \begin{abstract}
160: %
161: A module of the ATLAS electromagnetic barrel
162: liquid argon calorimeter was exposed %at $\eta=0.687$
163: to the CERN electron test-beam
164: at the H8 beam line upgraded for precision momentum measurement.
165: The available energies of the electron beam ranged from $10$ to $245$\GeVx.
166: The electron beam impinged at one point corresponding to a pseudo-rapidity
167: of $\eta=0.687$ and an azimuthal angle of $\phi=0.28$ in the ATLAS coordinate system.
168: A detailed study of several effects biasing the
169: electron energy measurement allowed an energy reconstruction procedure
170: to be developed that ensures a good linearity and a good resolution.
171: Use is made of detailed Monte Carlo simulations based on
172: \Geant which describe the longitudinal and transverse
173: shower profiles as well as the energy distributions.
174: For electron energies between $15$\GeV and $180$\GeV the deviation of the measured incident electron
175: energy over the beam energy is within $0.1\%$.
176: The systematic uncertainty of the measurement is about $0.1\%$ % per effect
177: at low energies and negligible at high energies.
178: The energy
179: resolution is found to be about $10$\% $\cdot \sqrt{E}$ for the sampling term
180: and about $0.2$\% for the local constant term.
181: \end{abstract}
182: %
183: %
184: %\bigskip
185: %\bigskip
186: \begin{keyword}
187: Calorimeters \sep particle physics
188: % keywords here, in the form: keyword \sep keyword
189: % PACS codes here, in the form: \PACS code \sep code
190: %\PACS
191: %29.40.Vj \sep 06.30.Bp
192: \end{keyword}
193: \end{frontmatter}
194:
195:
196: %\end{titlepage}
197:
198: %\tableofcontents
199: %\newpage
200:
201: \section*{Introduction}
202: \noindent
203: The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), currently under construction at CERN,
204: will collide protons on protons with a beam energy of $7$~{\rm TeV},
205: extending the available centre-of-mass energy %($\sqrt{s}$)
206: by about an order of magnitude over that of existing colliders. Together with its high
207: collision rate, corresponding to an expected integrated luminosity of
208: $10-100~{\mathrm{ fb}}^{-1}/{\mathrm{ year}}$, these energies allow for production
209: of particles with high masses or high transverse momenta or other processes with low production
210: cross-sections. The LHC will search for effects of new interactions at very short
211: distances and for new particles beyond the Standard Model of
212: particle physics (SM).
213: The large particle production rates at LHC are not only a challenge to our
214: theoretical understanding of proton proton collisions at such high energies,
215: but also for the detectors.
216:
217: An excellent knowledge of the electron or photon energy
218: is needed for precision measurements of, for example couplings within and beyond the SM,
219: or to resolve possible narrow resonances of new particles over a large background.
220: A good energy resolution and a good linearity need to be achieved for energies
221: ranging from a few\GeV up to a few\TeVx.
222:
223: A prominent example is the possible discovery of the Higgs boson which in the SM
224: provides an explanation how the elementary particles acquire mass.
225: If the Higgs boson mass is below $130$\GeVx,
226: the decay $H\rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ is
227: the most promising discovery channel. If the Higgs mass is larger and, in particular if
228: it is at least twice the mass of the $Z^0$-boson $2\,M_Z \sim 180$\GeVx,
229: the Higgs boson can be discovered in the $H \rightarrow Z^0 Z^0 \rightarrow e^+ e^- e^+ e^-$
230: decay channel. Even in this case
231: the energy of one of the electrons can be as low as about $10$\GeVx.
232: The possible observation of the Higgs boson
233: requires therefore excellent measurements of electrons and photons from low
234: to high energies.
235:
236:
237: The absolute energy measurement can be calibrated on reference reactions as
238: $p p \to Z^0 X \to e^+ e^- X$, exploiting the precise knowledge of the mass of the
239: $Z^0$-boson. However, a good energy resolution and a good linearity can only be achieved,
240: if the detector, the physics processes in the detector, and effects of the
241: read-out electronics are well understood. In particular, knowledge of the
242: detector linearity determines how precisely an energy measurement at one
243: particular energy can be transfered to any energy. For instance, to measure
244: the mass of the $W^\pm$-boson with a precision of $15$\MeV
245: a linearity of about $10^{-4}$ is required in an energy interval
246: which is given by the difference of the transverse energy spectrum of an electron
247: from the $W^\pm$-boson decay and that of the $Z^0$-boson~\cite{TDRPhys}.
248:
249:
250: The electromagnetic (EM) barrel liquid argon (\LArx) calorimeter
251: is the main detector to measure the electron energy
252: in the central part of the ATLAS detector.
253: It is a sampling calorimeter with accordion shaped
254: lead absorbers and \LAr as active medium.
255: %It covers the central rapidity region, i.e. $|\eta|<1.42$.
256: %In addition, it is equally important that the data are well described
257: %by Monte Carlo simulations.
258:
259: In August $2002$ a production module of the ATLAS \LAr EM
260: barrel calorimeter was exposed to an electron beam in the
261: energy range of $10$ to $245$\GeV at the CERN H8 beam line, which was
262: upgraded with a system to precisely measure the beam energy.
263: These data are used to assess the linearity of the electron
264: energy measurement and the energy resolution.
265: A calibration scheme is developed
266: which ensures simultaneously a good linearity and a good resolution.
267:
268: In the past the linearity of the ATLAS EM calorimeter
269: has been studied with a
270: calorimeter prototype \cite{TDR}. For electron energies between
271: $20$ - $300$\GeV a linearity within $1$\% has been measured.
272:
273: In section~\ref{sec:beam} the system to measure the linearity of the beam energy
274: is presented and its accuracy is discussed.
275: Section~\ref{sec:set-up} describes the ATLAS EM barrel calorimeter,
276: the H8 test-beam set-up, the data samples, and the event selection.
277: The Monte Carlo simulation is out-lined in section~\ref{sec:g4}.
278: %
279: Section~\ref{sec:calib} summarises the calibration of the electronic signal, converting
280: the measured current to a visible energy, i.e., the energy deposited in the active medium.
281: Section~\ref{sec:calibration_emshower} discusses general effects related to
282: the physics of EM showers that need to be taken into account to precisely
283: reconstruct the electron energy.
284: %
285: Section~\ref{sec:reco} presents the calibration procedure to precisely reconstruct
286: the total electron energy.
287: Comparison of the visible energies and the total reconstructed energy
288: in the data and in the Monte Carlo simulation are shown in section~\ref{sec:data_mc_comparision}.
289: The possible pion contamination in the electron beam is discussed
290: in section~\ref{sec:pion_contamination}.
291: %
292: The results of the energy measurement together with their systematic uncertainties
293: are presented in section~\ref{sec:results}.
294:
295:
296: %\newpage
297: \section{Precise Determination of the Relative Electron Beam Energy}
298: \label{sec:beam}
299: \subsection{The H8 Beam-line}
300: \label{sec:beamsetup}
301: \noindent
302: The H8 beam line %\cite{h8beamline}
303: is sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:beamline}.
304: %
305: The electron momentum definition %used in the work reported below,
306: is based on the second
307: momentum analysis using two triplets of bending magnets B3 and B4, between collimator C3
308: acting as a source, and collimator C9 acting as a momentum slit, while the upstream part
309: was set at $180$\GeVx.
310: A thin sheet of lead was introduced upstream of C3 to increase
311: the electron yield.
312: %At all energies the downstream part of the beam line was setup first, then
313: %the upstream part was tuned so as to reach a maximum rate at C9.
314: The magnets were set in direct current (DC) mode and the induced current was read-out
315: with a Direct Current Current Transformer (DCCT).
316:
317:
318: To control the induced current in the spectrometer with a single
319: precision DCCT, only the B3 magnets,
320: connected in series, were used. This limited the maximum momentum
321: to $180$\GeV for a current of about $1200$~{\rm A}.
322: The B4 magnets were degaussed, following a bipolar loop and kept
323: unpowered. The remaining bending power $\int B dl$ was zero
324: with an uncertainty of $\pm 1.5$~{\rm mT~$\cdot$~m}.
325: Each bending magnet has an effective length of $5.2$~{\rm m}
326: and a field of $1.42$~{\rm T/kA} (linear part).
327:
328:
329: To eliminate any uncertainty coming from the geometry
330: of the spectrometer, the jaw positions of both C3 and C9 were kept
331: fixed during the entire data taking period. A slit of $8$~{\rm mm} was chosen for C3
332: as a compromise between the beam intensity and the momentum spread. %, i.e. accuracy and rate.
333: The slit of C9 was kept at $8$~{\rm mm}.
334: The induced momentum spread was $\pm 0.15$~\% at all energies.
335: With the geometry of the spectrometer fixed (its total deviation
336: is $41$~{\rm mrad}) the momentum of selected electrons is directly proportional
337: to the bending power $\int B dl$ of the B3 triplet. A correction of half the
338: energy lost by synchrotron radiation in the spectrometer
339: was applied to particles at the detector, downstream of C9.
340:
341:
342: The effect of the earth's field along the beam line was also evaluated.
343: %While a naive calculation gives a positive shift of $22$\MeV on negative particles,
344: %The effect of the quadrupoles in the beam-line simulated
345: %with the TURTLE program\cite{turtle} has been found to shift the electron energy by
346: %$4$\MeVx. The shift is positive for negative particles.
347: %
348: Taking into account the focusing effect of the quadrupoles with the
349: beam transport program TURTLE\cite{turtle},
350: the net effect found was a shift of $+4$\MeV for negative particles.
351:
352:
353:
354: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
355: \begin{figure}[th]
356: \begin{center}
357: \psfig{figure=figs/beamline.eps,
358: %bbllx=16,bblly=50,bburx=530,bbury=630,angle=270,clip,
359: width=14.5cm}
360: \end{center}
361: %\vspace{-1.cm}
362: \caption
363: {Sketch of the H8 beam line showing the momentum definition elements.
364: The magnets labeled B4 were degaussed during the data taking period.
365: \label{fig:beamline}}
366: \end{figure}
367: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
368:
369:
370: \subsection{Control of the Beam Energy Linearity}
371: \label{sec:beamlinearity}
372: \noindent
373: Two main sources of uncertainties on the power of the
374: bending magnets had to be controlled:
375: \begin{enumerate}
376: \item The value of the current in the magnet string: \\
377: The precision supply and the DCCT read-out ensured a relative precision and reproducibility of
378: $1 \cdot 10^{-4}$ \cite{iliasres,gustavson,hassani,gg}.
379:
380: \item The calibration and reproducibility of the hysteresis curve: \\
381: At the maximum current of $1200$~{\rm A}, the integral bending power is about
382: $2$\% below the linear extrapolation from low currents (see Fig.~\ref{fig:mag_field}).
383: This needed to be calibrated and the non-linearity controlled to
384: about one percent. % of itself.
385: \end{enumerate}
386:
387: A reference magnet (MBN25) was %once more
388: calibrated using a precision power
389: supply and the DCCT, and a two wire loop to measure its bending power.
390: The magnetic field at the centre was also measured
391: with a relative precision better than $ 1 \cdot 10^{-5}$
392: using a set of NMR probes \cite{iliasres,gustavson}
393: Results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mag_field}.
394: The measurements can be fitted with a polynomial function. The
395: residuals are smaller than $10^{-4}$.
396:
397:
398: To transport this calibration to the B3 triplet,
399: calibration curves measured during the time of production of about $100$ MBN
400: magnets were used to compare the reference magnet and the magnets of the B3 triplet.
401: While all magnets had been trimmed during production to be identical
402: within $\pm 2 \cdot 10^{-4}$ \cite{asner,loas}, a small difference
403: (at most $3 \cdot 10^{-4}$ at the highest current)
404: between the reference magnet and the B3 triplet had to be corrected.
405:
406: To ensure reproducibility of the field for a given current,
407: the same unipolar setting loop was always used, both in the bench test and
408: during setting up with the beam. With this procedure,
409: the uncertainty on the bending
410: power is $1$~{\rm mT~$\cdot$~m} at all energies.
411:
412: In order to have a further cross-check of the actual field
413: in the B3 triplet during electron data taking,
414: one of the magnets of the triplet was instrumented with two sets
415: of Hall probes, to be read-out during each burst.
416: %The Hall probes and their read-out were borrowed from a set prepared by
417: %NIKHEF for the instrumentation of the ATLAS muon spectrometer \cite{atlasmuon}.
418: They were positioned at $1.0$ {\rm m} and $1.5$ {\rm m} inside
419: the magnet, within a few~{\rm mm} from the vacuum pipe.
420: The Hall probes data include Hall voltages for three orthogonal directions,
421: and the temperature. A correction of about $-3 \cdot 10^{-4}/^oC$
422: for the magnetic field as measured with the Hall probes was applied.
423: By running the Hall probes positioned in the reference magnet at the
424: same location as in the B3 magnets, a cross calibration with respect to
425: the current in the DCCT, the magnetic field at centre,
426: and the bending power was obtained.
427:
428: A critical test of the cross calibration of the two field
429: measurements in B3 is a comparison of the magnetic field at the magnet centre calculated from
430: the DCCT current and from the Hall probe signals. Fig.~\ref{fig:hall} shows an excellent agreement
431: up to $400$ {\rm A} and a small systematic inhomogeneity ($0.15$\%) at the maximum
432: current. This difference is attributed to a slight difference of the
433: field at the Hall probe location, which is not taken into account
434: by the comparative calibration. A linear interpolation of the differences
435: leaves an average dispersion of $2 \cdot 10^{-4}$ which indicates the level
436: of uncertainty on the linearity induced by taking one measurement or the
437: other. %{\it to be checked XXXX}.
438:
439:
440:
441: \subsection{Results and Uncertainties}
442: \label{sec:beamresults}
443: \noindent
444: %For comparisons with the electron energy reconstructed in the
445: %calorimeter the bending power calculated from the DCCT current was used.
446: For the final comparison of the beam energy with the electron energy reconstructed in the
447: calorimeter, the bending power calculated from the DCCT current was used.
448: For each run the DCCT currents read-out at each burst
449: were averaged. The currents were stable within $0.01$~{\rm A}.
450:
451: The resultant beam energy determinations are summarised in Tab.~\ref{tab:beam_momentum}.
452: The synchrotron radiation correction includes small additional losses in the correction
453: magnets (B5 and B6) downstream of C9.
454:
455: %Since we didn't aimed in this work at a precise absolute calibration which is
456: %known to about $1$\% from the beam setting,
457: %the energy was arbitrarily normalised at $100$~\GeV.
458: Since this work does not aim at a precise absolute calibration\footnote{The absolute beam energy
459: is known to about $1\%$.},
460: the electron beam energy was arbitrarily normalised at $100$\GeVx.
461: The maximum induced uncertainty on the synchrotron radiation loss is $15$\MeV at $180$\GeVx.
462: The magnet correction corresponds to the difference between MBN25
463: and the three magnets of the B3 string.
464:
465: The largest uncertainty is associated to the remnant field
466: in B3 ($\pm 1$ {\rm mT $\cdot$ m} randomly on each energy point).
467: The resulting uncertainty on the linearity measurement estimated with a simple
468: Monte Carlo simulation where a perfect linearity is assumed and the beam momenta
469: fluctuate according to their uncertainties is $3 \cdot 10^{-4}$.
470: A further systematic
471: uncertainty of $11$~\MeV due to the remnant fields in the B4 magnets must be added.
472: This last uncertainty is common to all data points.
473:
474: %More details on the measurement of the beam momentum can be found in ref.~\cite{gg,hassani}.
475:
476: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
477: \begin{figure}[th]
478: \begin{center}
479: \psfig{figure=figs/calibs.eps,
480: %bbllx=16,bblly=50,bburx=530,bbury=630,angle=0,clip,
481: width=14.cm}
482: \end{center}
483: \begin{picture}(0,0)
484: \put( 5, 5){a)}
485: \put(80, 5){b)}
486: \end{picture}
487: \vspace{-0.5cm}
488: \caption
489: {a) Calibration measurements of the magnetic field
490: integrated over the beam path as a function of the induced current.
491: The adjusted parameterisation is superimposed as line.
492: b) Deviation from linearity, i.e., measured field values divided by a linear parameterisation
493: obtained from the points below $I < 500$ {\rm A}
494: as a function of the induced current.
495: \label{fig:mag_field}}
496: \end{figure}
497: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
498:
499: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
500: \begin{figure}[th]
501: \vspace{0.5cm}
502: \begin{center}
503: \psfig{figure=figs/hallresult.eps,width=14.cm}
504: \end{center}
505: \vspace{-0.3cm}
506: \caption
507: {Difference between the values of the magnetic field at the magnet centre,
508: predicted by the calibration obtained from the current measurements and
509: the magnetic field measurements with the Hall probe as a function
510: of the current. The error bars represent the root mean square of the distribution.
511: \label{fig:hall}}
512: \end{figure}
513: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
514:
515: \input table
516:
517: %\newpage
518: \section{Test-Beam Set-up and Event Selection}
519: \label{sec:set-up}
520: \subsection{Test-Beam Set-up}
521: \label{sec:test-beam-set-up}
522: \noindent
523: The H8 test-beam set-up is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:testbeamsetup}.
524: The EM barrel calorimeter is located in a cryostat filled with liquid argon (\LArx).
525: The cryostat consists of an inner and an outer aluminum wall with thicknesses
526: of $4.1$\cm and $3.9$\cmx, respectively.
527: The two walls are separated by a vacuum gap.
528: Between the cryostat and the calorimeter module a foam block (ROHACELL) is installed to exclude
529: \LAr in front of the calorimeter.
530:
531: The cryostat is mounted on a
532: table that allows rotation of the calorimeter in the two directions orthogonal
533: to the beam axis. The two directions are %conventionally
534: chosen to be the
535: $\eta$ and $\phi$ directions with respect to a reference frame with cylindrical
536: coordinates having its origin in the virtual proton-proton interaction point
537: in ATLAS (see Fig.~\ref{fig:testbeamsetup}).
538: In this coordinate system the $z$-axis is defined along the beam axis.
539: The $\phi$ and $\theta$ angles are the azimuthal and polar angles. The pseudo-rapidity
540: is defined by $\eta = - \log{\tan{\theta/2}}$.
541: %
542: %For the runs analysed here, the table was fixed at $\eta=0.687$ and $\phi=0.28$.
543:
544: In front of the cryostat
545: four multi-wire proportional chambers (BC1, BC2, BC3, BC4)
546: measured the position of the beam particles. %In between the MWPC
547: Three scintillator counters (S1,S3,S4) located in between the wire chambers
548: were used as event trigger. The last two (S3 and S4) each with a size of $4$x$4$\cm
549: were used to define the beam acceptance and to reject events with more than
550: one charged track.
551: Since in the test-beam particles hit the calorimeter at random times with respect to the
552: $40$~{\rm MHz} clock used by the front-end electronics, the time between
553: a trigger and the next clock cycle was measured with a Time Digital Converter (TDC)
554: with a $50$~{\rm ps}/TDC-count sensitivity.
555:
556: Behind the calorimeter and after about $13$\Xzero of material
557: (including cryostat and a $5$\cm lead plate)
558: a scintillator was installed to reject pions (pion counter).
559: Another scintillator was installed after an iron block of $5$ interaction
560: lengths to reject muons. For most of the runs both scintillators have been used
561: on-line to reject muons and pions.
562:
563:
564: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
565: \begin{figure}[th]
566: %\vspace{0.5cm}
567: \begin{center}
568: \psfig{figure=figs/setup.eps,width=14.cm}
569: \end{center}
570: %\vspace{-0.3cm}
571: \caption
572: {Schematic top view of the test-beam set-up.
573: \label{fig:testbeamsetup}}
574: \end{figure}
575: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
576:
577: \subsection{The ATLAS Electromagnetic Barrel Calorimeter}
578: \label{sec:em_barrel}
579: \noindent
580: The details of the ATLAS \LAr barrel calorimeter are described elsewhere \cite{TDR,newNIM}.
581: %
582: A module is made out of accordion shaped lead absorbers glued
583: between two $0.2\mm$thick stainless steel sheets
584: placed into a cryostat containing \LArx.
585: %In the middle between
586: The read-out electrodes are interleaved between two absorbers.
587: At $\eta=0.687$, the lead of the absorbers have a thickness of $1.53\mm$
588: and the gap size is about $2.1\mm$on each side of the electrode.
589:
590: The module is longitudinally segmented into three compartments, each having a different
591: transverse segmentation. At $\eta=0.687$, the front, middle and back compartments have thicknesses of
592: $4.6$ \Xzerox, $17.6$\Xzero and $5.0$\Xzerox, respectively.
593: The front compartment is finely segmented in
594: $\eta$ strips with a granularity of $0.025/8$ $\eta$-units,
595: but has only four segments in $\phi$ with a granularity of $2\pi/64$.
596: The middle compartment has a segmentation of $0.025$ in $\eta$ and $2\pi/256$
597: in $\phi$. The back compartment
598: has in $\phi$ the same granularity as the middle compartment, but is twice as
599: coarse in $\eta$ ($0.05$).
600:
601:
602: A thin presampler detector (PS) is mounted in front of the accordion module.
603: The PS consists of two straight sectors with cathode and anode electrodes glued between
604: plates made of a fibreglass epoxy composite (FR4).
605: The $13$\mm long
606: electrodes are oriented at a small angle with respect to the line where a particle from the test-beam
607: or from the nominal interaction point in ATLAS is expected to impinge on the calorimeter.
608: The gap between the electrodes is $1.93$\mmx. The presampler is segmented with
609: a fine granularity in $\eta$ of about $0.025$. It has four segments in $\phi$
610: with a granularity of $2\pi/64$.
611:
612: Between the PS and the first compartment (depending on $\phi$)
613: read-out cables and electronics
614: like the summing- and mother-boards are installed.
615: %Details can be found in \cite{perrodo}.
616: % can we add a reference to the construction paper (ask Isabelle suggests)
617:
618: In total a full module, including the PS, has $3424$ read-out cells.
619:
620:
621:
622: \subsection{Data Samples and Event Selection}
623: \label{sec:data_samples}
624: \noindent
625: Runs at $18$ different energies between $10$\GeV and $245$\GeV were recorded with a
626: ATLAS \LAr barrel calorimeter module beginning of August $2002$
627: within three days. Approximately every 12 hours calibration
628: runs were taken. Some of the runs were repeated with the same beam energy at different
629: times during the data taking period. No systematic effect was found.
630: The temperature variation of the \LAr was within $7$~{\rm mK} over the total $2002$ running period, which corresponds to
631: a maximum variation of the calorimeter response of $\pm 7 \cdot 10^{-5}$.
632:
633: The electron beam impinged on the module at an angle corresponding to a virtual angle in the
634: ATLAS experiment\footnote{In the ATLAS cell numbering scheme this
635: corresponds to the centre of the middle compartment cell $\eta_i=27$ (out of $54$)
636: and $\phi_i=11$ (out of $16$).}
637: of $\eta=0.687$ and $\phi=0.282$.
638:
639:
640: %Each run typically contained $20000$ events. {\it XXX to be checked}
641:
642: The following selection requirements have been applied to select a pure sample of single electrons:
643: \begin{itemize}
644: \item the pion counter had to be %within $280$ and $510$ ADC counts;
645: compatible with no signal.
646: \item the S3 scintillator counter signal had to be % within $750$ and $1500$ ADC counts;
647: compatible with that from one minimum ionising particle.
648: \item cuts on the TDC signals of the chambers
649: were imposed to remove double hits and to ensure a good track reconstruction.
650: In addition, the beam chamber information was used to define a square of $3$x$3$\cmx$^2$
651: around the mean beam position (evaluated for each analysed run)
652: defining the beam acceptance.
653: \item the $\phi$ and $\eta$ positions reconstructed by the shower barycentre
654: must be %$ 10.6 < \overline{\phi} <11.4$ and $26.6<\overline{\eta}<27.2$.
655: within $0.4$ cell units vertical to the cell centre in $\phi$.
656: and within $0.4$ ($0.2$) cell units left (right) from the cell centre.
657: \end{itemize}
658:
659: %
660: %The last requirement ensures that the $\eta$ and $\phi$ distribution of the impinging beam particles
661: %(beam profile) is similar in the data and in the Monte Carlo simulation (see section \ref{sec:g4}).
662:
663: The number of the selected electron events for each energy point can be found
664: in Tab.~\ref{tab:beam_momentum}. The run at $E=245$\GeV is left out from the table,
665: since no precision measurement of the electron beam energy was possible with the
666: used magnet set-up.
667: For lower energies the statistics was limited by the rate of electrons in the beam.
668:
669:
670:
671: %\newpage
672: \section{Monte Carlo Simulation}
673: \label{sec:g4}
674: \noindent
675: The simulation of the beam-line and of the calorimeter module
676: was performed using the \Geant Monte Carlo simulation package \cite{g4}.
677: The detailed shower development follows all
678: particles with an interaction range larger than $20$ {\rm $\mu$m}.
679: Besides purely electromagnetic processes, also hadron interactions, such as those
680: induced by photon nucleon interactions\footnote{Here, and for the simulations of pions
681: the QGSP physics list is used for the simulations of hadron interactions.},
682: were simulated.
683: In addition to the energy deposited in each calorimeter cell, the induced
684: current was calculated taking into account the distortion of the electric field in the
685: accordion structure.
686: Normalisation factors
687: equalising the response in the regions of uniform electrical field
688: were applied to ensure the correct inter-calibration of the accordion
689: layers.
690:
691: One major challenge in the simulation is the correct description of the passive
692: material in front of the detector and between the PS and the first accordion compartment.
693: The details of the material description as implemented in the
694: Monte Carlo simulation are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:x0vscm}a and Fig.~\ref{fig:x0vscm}b.
695: The beam instrumentation before the cryostat corresponds to $0.2$\Xzerox.
696: The two aluminum walls of the cryostat, the argon excluder (Foam) and the \LAr in front of the
697: PS have in total a thickness of about $1.5$\Xzerox.
698:
699: The amount of \LAr between the PS and the inner cryostat wall
700: is not well known, since the exact position of the argon excluder in front of the calorimeter
701: was not precisely measured.
702: An estimate of $2$\cm
703: has been obtained by simulating different configurations and by requiring that the ratio
704: of the visible energy in the simulation and in the data does not depend on the
705: beam energy for each calorimeter layer.
706: From this study, a systematic uncertainty of $\pm 0.5$\cm is estimated.
707:
708:
709: The electronic read-out chain and the signal reconstruction are only partly simulated.
710: The current to energy conversion takes into account the convolution of the signal
711: with the shaper response and its integration time. Thus, the response at the peak
712: of the signal is simulated.
713: A cross-talk correction
714: derived from calibration runs (see section~\ref{sec:elec_calib})
715: is applied to simulate the effects on the shape of the energy distribution
716: in the first compartment. The total energy in the first layer is not modified.
717:
718:
719:
720: The electronic noise has been extracted from randomly triggered events where the signals
721: have been reconstructed in the same way as in physics events (see section~\ref{sec:calib}).
722: This noise has been added incoherently to the energy of each cell.
723: %Since low energy cells are reconstructed in the high gain configuration
724: %while high energy cells are reconstructed in medium gain (see section~\ref{sec:elec_calib}),
725: %the noise is slightly lower in low energy cells
726: %than in high energy ones.
727: In the medium gain the noise is slightly larger due to the contribution of the second stage
728: noise of the electronics.
729: The noise has been measured in special runs,
730: where randomly triggered events are recorded with fixed electronic gains
731: (see section~\ref{sec:pedestal}).
732: %
733: The final noise has then been calculated as the root mean square of
734: one of the two samples
735: chosen according to the probability that a given cell is in high or medium gain.
736:
737:
738: An event sample was simulated for each energy point in Table.~\ref{tab:beam_momentum}.
739: At low (high) energy the simulated event samples were about $20$ ($2$) times larger than the
740: corresponding data samples.
741: %%% XXXX number to be updated
742:
743:
744: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
745: \begin{figure}[th]
746: \vspace{-0.5cm}
747: \begin{center}
748: \psfig{figure=figs/cx0vscm.ps,
749: bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=570,bbury=730,angle=270,clip,width=14.cm}
750: \psfig{figure=figs/cx0vscm2.ps,
751: bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=570,bbury=730,angle=270,clip,width=14.cm}
752: \end{center}
753: \begin{picture}(0,0)
754: \put( 10, 110){a)}
755: \put( 10, 0){b)}
756: \end{picture}
757: \vspace{-0.3cm}
758: \caption{
759: a) Amount of material in the beam line starting just before the cryostat
760: along the axis of a particle penetrating at $\eta=0.687$.
761: b) Detailed view of the material in the presampler and before the first compartment.
762: \label{fig:x0vscm}}
763: \end{figure}
764: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
765:
766:
767:
768:
769:
770: %\newpage
771: \section{Electronic Calibration}
772: \label{sec:calib}
773: \noindent
774: The ionisation signal from the calorimeter is brought via cables in the \LAr
775: out of the cryostat to the front end crates (FEC).
776: These crates, directly located on the cryostat, house both the
777: Front End Boards (FEB) and the calibration boards.
778:
779: On the FEB, the signal is first amplified by a current sensitive preamplifier. In order to accommodate the large
780: dynamic range and to optimise the total noise (electronics and pile-up), the signal is shaped with a
781: CR-RC$^2$ architecture (bipolar shape) and split in three linear scales with a typical ratio $1 : 9.2 : 92$, called
782: low, medium and high gain. For a given channel these three signals
783: are sampled at the $40$ {\rm MHz} clock frequency and
784: stored in an analog pipeline (Switched Capacitor Array) until the trigger decision.
785: After a trigger, a predefined number of samples ($N$) is digitised by a $12$ bit ADC.
786: This digitisation is done either on each gain or on the most
787: suited gain according to a hardware gain selection based on the amplitude of a fixed sample in the
788: medium gain.
789: %As in the beam test, the trigger is not synchronous with the $40$ {\rm MHz} clock,
790: %the phase between a trigger and the clock is measured with a TDC.
791:
792: The response dispersion of the electronics read-out is about $2$\%.
793: To account for such an effect
794: and for the different detector capacitances of each calorimeter cell, the calibration
795: board provides to all channels an exponential signal that mimics the
796: calorimeter ionisation signal.
797: %
798: This voltage signal is made by fast switching of
799: a precise DC current flowing into an inductor and
800: is brought to the motherboard on the calorimeter via a $50$ $\Omega$ cable terminated at both
801: ends. The amplitude uniformity dispersion is better than $0.2 \%$.
802: One calibration signal is distributed through precise resistors
803: to $8$ ($32$) calorimeter cells for the middle (front and back)
804: compartment whose location is chosen such that cross-talk can be studied.
805:
806:
807: Details on the calibration of the electronics can be found in Ref.~\cite{modul0}.
808: %For the $2002$ data taking period a publication
809: %on the uniformity of the calorimeter response at a fixed energy
810: %is in preparation \cite{uniformity}.
811: %There the full calibration of the electronic chain will be discussed.
812: Here we summarise those aspects which are relevant for the linearity of the energy measurement.
813:
814: The cell energy is reconstructed from the measured cell signal using:
815: \begin{eqnarray}
816: E^{vis}_{cell} = \frac{1}{f_{I/E}} \;
817: F_{gain} \;
818: \sum_{sample = 1,N} OF_{sample,gain} \;
819: (S_{sample} - P_{gain}),
820: \label{eq:calib_summary}
821: \end{eqnarray}
822: where
823: $S_{sample}$ is the signal measured in ADC counts in $N$ time slices,
824: $P_{gain}$ is the pedestal for each gain (see section~\ref{sec:pedestal})
825: and $OF_{sample,gain}$ are the optimal filtering (OF) coefficients derived from the shape
826: of the physics pulse and the noise (see section~\ref{sec:of}).
827: %The OF coefficients are used to
828: %determine the amplitude and the arrival time of the physics signal.
829: The function $F_{gain}$ converts for each gain
830: ADC counts to currents in $\mu A$
831: %and is measured by injecting a well-known current in the detector capacity
832: (see section~\ref{sec:elec_calib}).
833: The factor $f_{I/E}$ takes into account the conversion from the measured current
834: to the energy (see section~\ref{sec:fieps}).
835:
836:
837: \subsection{Pedestal Subtraction}
838: \label{sec:pedestal}
839: \noindent
840: %Due to various electronic effects, e.g. temperature variations, the absolute meaning of a measured ADC count
841: %can vary with time.
842: In order to determine the signal levels where
843: %ADC count value where
844: no energy is deposited in the detector, special runs with random triggers
845: and no beam were taken ("pedestal runs").
846: %For the reconstruction of the runs with
847: %particles impinging on the detector, these pedestals are subtracted.
848: The stability of the pedestal values was checked using runs taken in regular
849: intervals throughout the data taking period. A run-by-run instability
850: was observed in particular for the PS
851: which has a non-negligible effect on the
852: reconstructed energy. No instability has been observed within a run.
853: To minimize the effects of such instabilities each electron run was corrected using
854: pedestal values measured with random triggers within the same run.
855: %In order to avoid these instabilities
856: %the pedestals have been recalculated using random triggers taken in parallel with the
857: %electron events.
858: This ensured that for each physics run the correct pedestals are calculated and
859: possible biases of about $20$\MeV are corrected.
860: %which would cause a non-linearity of the reconstructed electron energy of up to $0.2-0.3$\%.
861:
862:
863: \subsection{Determination of the Signal Amplitude}
864: \label{sec:of}
865: \noindent
866: %The signal induced by the ionisation of the \LAr in a calorimeter cell is
867: %amplified, shaped and sampled
868: %at the LHC bunch crossing frequency every $25$\ns and is digitised.
869: %
870: The peak amplitude $A$ (and the signal time) is extracted from the $N=5$ signal
871: samples ($S_{sample}$)
872: using a digital filtering technique \cite{of}.
873: The peak amplitude is expanded in a linear weighted sum
874: of coefficients (OF) and the pedestal subtracted signal in each sample
875: (see eq.~\ref{eq:calib_summary}).
876:
877: The coefficients are calculated using the expected shape of the physics signal,
878: its derivative and the noise autocorrelation function. %in all samples.
879: %The calculation is based on a Lagrange multiplier technique where
880: The noise contribution is minimised respecting constraints on the signal
881: amplitude and its time jitter.
882: The noise autocorrelation function is determined from randomly triggered events.
883:
884: %The physics pulse shape is determined in a semi-predictive approach \cite{of2,unitarity}:
885: %The method exploits that most of the signal path is the same for the physics pulse
886: %from the ionisation in a cell and the pulse injected by the calibration system\footnote{The full
887: %read-out chain from the motherboard to the front-end board is common.}.
888: %The calibration pulse shape is reconstructed for each cell in special calibration runs
889: %(delay runs), where a signal with a fixed amplitude and a variable time for the pulse is injected.
890: %Each calibration pulse is composed out of $175$ samples with a $1$\ns sampling step.
891:
892: %To predict the physics pulse shape from this signal two points have to
893: %be taken into account: First, the physics pulse stems from a triangular input signal
894: %while the calibration signal stems from an exponential one.
895: %Second, the calibration signal is injected on the motherboard and is not generated
896: %in the \LAr cell. The path between the \LAr cell (modelled with a capacitance $C$)
897: %and the motherboard can be modelled by an inductance ($L$) and a resistor ($r$).
898: %Using a simple electrical model of a read-out channel, the form of the physics channel
899: %can be predicted using a formula
900: %with four free parameters: $\omega_0=1/\sqrt{C L}$, $\tau = r C$
901: %and the starting times of the calibration and the physics pulse.
902: %The free parameters can be extracted from a fit to the
903: %measured physics pulse shape. For each cell the OF coefficients are then calculated \cite{prieur}.
904:
905:
906: The shape of the physics signal can be predicted using a formula with four free parameters
907: that can be extracted from a fit to the measured physics pulse shape
908: \cite{of2}. %\cite{of2,uniformity}.
909: For each cell, the OF coefficients are then calculated \cite{prieur}.
910: %
911: Over the full module, the shapes of the measured and predicted physics pulse
912: agree to within $2\%$ and the residuals
913: of the pulse shape at the peak position are within $0.5$\% in the first and $1$\% in the second compartment.
914: For the cells involved in the electron energy measured at the beam position studied in this analysis,
915: the residuals deviate by at most $7 \cdot 10^{-3}$ in the first compartment and
916: by at most $2.5 \cdot 10^{-3}$ in the second compartment.
917: %The normalisation difference between the physics and the
918: %calibration signal is deduced and applied.
919:
920:
921: Due to the fine segmentation of the first calorimeter compartment
922: there is unavoidably a capacitive coupling between
923: the read-out cells (strips).
924: This cross-talk affects the signal reconstruction during
925: the calibration procedure as well as the physics pulse shapes.
926: The cross-talk (see section~\ref{sec:elec_calib})
927: has been taken into account in the determination of the OF coefficients.
928:
929: \subsection{Calibration of the Read-out Electronics}
930: \label{sec:elec_calib}
931: \noindent
932: The relation between the current in a \LAr cell ($\mu A$)
933: and the signal measured with the read-out electronics (in {\rm ADC} counts) is determined by injecting
934: with the calibration system a well known current.
935: %To account for the variations of the electronics with time,
936: Calibration runs have been taken in regular intervals (about every $12$ hours) for each cell.
937: In these calibration runs currents with linearly rising amplitudes (in {\rm DAC} units)
938: are injected ("ramp runs").
939:
940: %To ensure a dynamic range from a few\MeV to several\TeV
941: %with a signal of a fixed bit size, three different amplification factors (gain) are used.
942: %In the test-beam, where only an energy range from $10\GeV$to $245\GeV$was available,
943: %only high and medium gain are needed.
944: %Typically a cell is read-out in the medium gain, if the energy in this cell is
945: %about above 23\GeV in the second compartment.
946:
947: For each cell and for each injected current, the amplitude is reconstructed from the measured
948: signal (after subtracting a parasitic injected current) % at low DAC values)
949: adjusting the pulse shape derived from special calibration runs (``delay runs''),
950: where a signal with a fixed amplitude and a variable time for the pulse is injected.
951:
952: Each reconstructed amplitude rises almost linearly with the
953: input signal. To correct for small non-linearities the dependence of the reconstructed amplitude
954: on the input signal is fitted with a fourth order polynomial.
955: This fit is used to reconstruct the visible energy in a \LAr cell
956: ($F_{gain}$ in eq.~\ref{eq:calib_summary}).
957:
958: As an example, in Fig.~\ref{fig:ccalib}
959: the results of the ramp run analysis is shown
960: for the cell that %has for most events
961: had on average the largest energy fraction during the data taking period.
962: The relation between the injected current in $\mu A$ and the reconstructed
963: amplitude in\GeV is shown. For a given DAC value on the calibration board a current
964: is injected and the resulting signal is measured in ADC counts.
965: To facilitate the interpretation\footnote{
966: %In the middle sampling $1$ DAC count in the
967: %calibration board corresponds to $37.5${\rm nA} ($f_{DAC/nA}$).
968: %The conversion of the measured ADC counts to\GeV has been approximated by:
969: %$a_1 f_{DAC/nA} / d (f_{I/E} f_{samp})$, where
970: %$a_1$ is the first coefficient of the polynom $P_4$
971: %($a_1=7.1$ ($0.76$) {\rm DAC/ADC} for medium (high) gain),
972: %$f_{I/E}=16$ {\rm nA/MeV} (see section~\ref{sec:fieps}),
973: %at $E=100$\GeV
974: %$f_{samp}=0.18$ (see eq.~\ref{eq:ErecAcc}) at $d=0.854$ and
975: %is a correction for reconstruction effects.
976: To convert ADC counts to GeV $f_{ADC/GeV}= 0.1082 \; (0.0117)$ has been used
977: for medium (high) gain.}
978: the data are already transformed into in\GeV units.
979:
980: The data obtained in medium gain are shown as open circles.
981: Data in high gain are shown as closed circles. At low energies, where the signal can be reconstructed in both gains
982: good agreement is found. In the region where the gains are switched the
983: difference between the high gain and the medium gain is only a few\MeVx.
984: The deviation from linearity of the electronics for a cell signal is $1-2 \%$.
985: The line shows the result of a fit of a fourth order polynomial $P_4({\rm ADC})$.
986: %The insert illustrates the deviation from linearity\footnote{The deviation from linearity
987: %is defined as $100 \, ({\rm DAC } - (a_{0} + a_{1} {\rm ADC}))/{\rm DAC}$.}.
988: The bottom part of the figure shows the residuals, i.e.,
989: the difference between the reconstructed and the input
990: signals in\MeVx. For the medium (high) gain the signal is reconstructed with an accuracy
991: of $40$ ($10$)\MeVx.
992:
993:
994: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
995: \begin{figure}[th]
996: \vspace{-0.5cm}
997: \begin{center}
998: \psfig{figure=figs/calib.ps,
999: bbllx=109,bblly=57,bburx=570,bbury=730,angle=270,clip,width=15.cm}
1000: \end{center}
1001: \begin{picture}(0,0)
1002: \put( 5, 5){a)}
1003: \put( 75, 5){b)}
1004: \end{picture}
1005: \vspace{-0.3cm}
1006: \caption
1007: {Relation of the measured cell signal in\GeV and the current
1008: ($\mu A$) injected by the calibration system for high and medium
1009: gain.
1010: Superimposed is the result of a fit to a fourth order polynomial.
1011: %In the top insert the
1012: %deviation from linearity, i.e., the difference of the injected current and the
1013: %linear part of the fit divided by the injected current,
1014: %is shown.
1015: In the bottom the residual, the difference of the injected current
1016: and the fit, is shown as a function of the measured signal.
1017: In a) the results for the medium gain and in b) the results for the high
1018: gain are shown. In addition, in b) the low signals of the medium gain are superimposed.
1019: \label{fig:ccalib}}
1020: \end{figure}
1021: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
1022:
1023:
1024: During the calibration of the electronics the cells are pulsed with
1025: a pattern where between two pulsed cells three cells are not pulsed.
1026: Since the calibration constants are derived from the known injected current and
1027: the measured signal for the pulsed cells, they are overestimated if the
1028: effect of cross-talk is not taken into account.
1029: In the first compartment, where the capacitive coupling between the cells is large,
1030: a cross-talk correction is derived for each cell using delay runs. It is obtained
1031: by adding the signal measured in
1032: the two closest passive neighbours of pulsed cell and the average of
1033: the next-to-closest neighbour.
1034: %The average can be used, since these cells
1035: %receive a similar contribution from the next pulsed cells
1036: %as that from the cell under investigation.
1037: %The fitted peak-to-peak ratio
1038: %between the pulse shape with and without cross-talk is the correction
1039: %to the calibration constants.
1040: The correction factors
1041: do not strongly vary for different electronic gains and they are moreover
1042: stable for all pulse values.
1043:
1044:
1045: \subsection{The Current to Energy Conversion Factor}
1046: \label{sec:fieps}
1047: \noindent
1048:
1049: The conversion from
1050: the measured current ($\mu {\rm A}$) to the visible energy (\MeVx)
1051: is done using a factor $f_{I/E}$, which is assumed to be independent of the beam energy.
1052: There is one common factor for the three accordion compartments and one factor for the
1053: presampler. Both factors are difficult to calculate from first principles.
1054: The difficulties arise from the complex structure of the
1055: electric field and from the modelling of physical effects like recombination
1056: of electrons in the \LArx.
1057:
1058: In this analysis they are determined
1059: from a comparison of the visible energies in the data and in the Monte Carlo simulation,
1060: where the complex accordion geometry and in particular the
1061: electrical field are simulated in detail. In this way also the dependence of the simulated
1062: signal on the range cut, below which a particle is not tracked any further and
1063: deposits all its energy, is absorbed.
1064: Since the current to energy conversion drops out in the linearity analysis, its exact
1065: value is not critical.
1066:
1067: The $f_{I/E}$ factor can be roughly estimated using a simplified model,
1068: where a detector cell is seen as a capacitor
1069: with constant electrical field:
1070: $f_{I/E}= e/(w * t) \approx 15$ {\rm nA/MeV},
1071: where $e$ is the elementary charge, $w$ is the ionisation
1072: potential of \LAr and $t$ is the drift time.
1073: The comparison of the data to the Monte Carlo simulation gives in the accordion calorimeter
1074: $f_{I/E} = 16.0$ {\rm nA/MeV}.
1075:
1076: %Due to different cable lengths in the calibration system, the
1077: %resistances for the first and the second compartment (see section~\ref{sec:elec_calib})
1078: %are slightly different than the nominal values assumed in the reconstruction software.
1079: %
1080: %The signal reconstructed
1081: %in the first compartment is therefore attenuated by $0.993$ with respect to that
1082: %of the second compartment.
1083: The calibration signal amplitude is attenuated due to the skin effect
1084: in the cables. The different lengths used in each compartment result
1085: in a small bias and the front signal has to be corrected by a factor $1.007$.
1086: %
1087: Differences from the slightly different electrical fields in the first and the second
1088: compartment (due to the different bending of the accordion folds) are estimated
1089: to be of the order of $0.3\%$ (using calculations of the electric field).
1090: The cross-talk effect in the first compartment (see section~\ref{sec:elec_calib})
1091: is corrected cell-by-cell. The result of this correction is that
1092: on average the measured total signal is lowered by
1093: a factor $0.93$. For all these effects,
1094: an uncertainty of $\pm 0.5\%$ is assigned for the
1095: relative normalisation of the first and the second compartment.
1096:
1097: In addition, a correction for cross-talk between the second and the third compartment is also needed.
1098: This is due to the read-out lines of the second compartment passing through the third one.
1099: Empirically it has been found that
1100: $0.55\%$ of the energy deposited in the second compartment ($E_2$) is measured in the
1101: third compartment ($E_3$). Therefore, $0.55\%$ of $E_2$ is subtracted from $E_3$ and added
1102: to $E_2$. The overall energy is not changed by this correction. However, to
1103: compare the energy fraction deposited in the individual layers and the
1104: mean shower depth in data and Monte Carlo simulations it has to be taken
1105: into account.
1106:
1107: In the PS the current to energy conversion
1108: factor is also estimated to be about $f_{I/E} = 16$ {\rm nA/MeV}.
1109: Two effects must be taken into account that reduce this factor:
1110: First, one cell with coherent noise had to be excluded from the analysis.
1111: For the impact point studied here this
1112: leads to a reduction of $0.95$ of the total PS signal (according to the Monte Carlo simulation).
1113: Second, the effective length of the PS is reduced to $11$\mm
1114: due to the vanishing electric field at
1115: the edges, the factor is $f_{I/E} = 16 \cdot (11/13) \cdot 0.95 = 12.9$ {\rm nA/MeV}.
1116: This is in agreement with the number found from the comparison of data to Monte Carlo.
1117:
1118:
1119:
1120:
1121:
1122:
1123:
1124: %\newpage
1125: \section{Calibration of Electromagnetic Showers}
1126: \label{sec:calibration_emshower}
1127: \subsection{Calibration Constants for Sampling Calorimeters}
1128: \label{sec:calibration_long_comp}
1129: \noindent
1130: In a sampling calorimeter the total deposited EM energy ($E^{tot}$)
1131: can be estimated from the energy deposited in the active medium ($E^{act}$)
1132: by dividing by the sampling fraction \fsamplex:
1133: \begin{equation}
1134: E^{tot} = \frac{1}{\fsample} \; E^{act}, \;\; {\rm with} \; \; \fsample
1135: = \frac{E^{act}}{E^{act}+E^{pas}},
1136: \label{eq:sampling}
1137: \end{equation}
1138: where $E^{pas}$ is the energy deposited in the passive material.
1139:
1140:
1141: For a minimum ionising particle the sampling fraction is a fixed number which can
1142: be calculated from the known energy deposits
1143: in the active and passive materials due to ionisation.
1144: Since the energy loss of electrons is different from that of muons, the sampling fraction
1145: for electron is lower.
1146: %
1147: %in addition energy by radiation, the $e/\mu$-ratio
1148: %,which can be obtained from empirical formulae using masses of the materials in the calorimeter,
1149: %has to be taken into account.
1150:
1151: In Fig.~\ref{fig:cprof_rebin}a is shown the shape of the deposited
1152: energy distribution of an EM shower
1153: along the shower axis ($l$) for electrons with $E= 10$\GeVx, $E= 100$\GeV and $E= 500$\GeVx,
1154: and for muons with $E= 10$\GeVx.
1155: The accordion calorimeter starts at $1500$\mmx.
1156: The sampling structure of the calorimeter ends at about $1960$\mmx.
1157: %After that the particles loose their energy in the \LAr of the cryostat.
1158: The energy depositions before and after the calorimeter are not shown.
1159:
1160: The muon loses only a small part of its energy in
1161: the calorimeter. The dips approximately every $40$\mm are
1162: due to the lead traversed by the muon going through the accordion (zig-zag) folds.
1163: %caused by the changing passive material due to the absorber folds.
1164:
1165: While the energy deposited by muons
1166: is approximately constant, for EM showers
1167: the deposited energy rises quickly to a maximum and then is slowly attenuated.
1168: As the energy of the impinging particle increases, the shower penetrates deeper
1169: into the calorimeter. In most events the shower is contained inside the calorimeter
1170: and only a very small fraction of the energy leaks out.
1171: At the end of the shower more and more particles at low energy are produced.
1172:
1173: Particles produced in the EM shower interact differently
1174: with the detector at the beginning and at the end of the shower development.
1175: %At the end of the shower a large number of low-energetic photons are produced which
1176: %have a higher probability to be stopped in the lead absorbers than in the \LAr.
1177: %
1178: At the end of the shower a large number of low-energetic photons are produced,
1179: which have a higher probablity to produce
1180: low energy electrons (via e.g. the photo-electric effect and Compton scattering)
1181: in the lead absorber than in the Lar. Since the range of these electrons is typically
1182: smaller than the lead absorber thickness, the energy
1183: deposit in the absorber increases relative to the energy deposit in the active material
1184: towards the end of the shower and the sampling
1185: fraction decreases \cite{gg,pinkau,beck,Crannell:1969ag,Flauger,delPeso:1990er}.
1186: %
1187: This is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:cprof_rebin}b, where the sampling fraction along the shower
1188: axis is shown for the same particles as in Fig.~\ref{fig:cprof_rebin}a.
1189: While the sampling fraction is constant for muons,
1190: for electrons the sampling fraction decreases towards the end of the shower.
1191: For an electron with $E= 10$\GeV the sampling fraction drops by $20$\%.
1192: This behaviour depends on the electron energy.
1193: However, when the sampling fraction is calculated as a function of the relative distance
1194: from the shower maximum, it shows a universal behaviour, i.e., it does not depend on the
1195: electron energy \cite{gg} (see Fig.~\ref{fig:cprof_rebin}c).
1196:
1197:
1198: When looking at a fixed point of the calorimeter, the sampling fraction
1199: can be different event-by-event due to longitudinal shower fluctuations.
1200: % the shower will start earlier or later in the calorimeter and therefore
1201: %the sampling fraction
1202: %at a fixed point of the calorimeter.
1203: If, however, the response of the calorimeter is equal in all regions,
1204: %the energy is deposited in the same way over the whole calorimeter, i.e.,
1205: the sampling fraction is the same %for all beam energies
1206: when integrated over the whole shower depth.
1207: %$\fsample = \int_0^\infty \fsamplex(l) \; dl$.
1208: Therefore the calorimeter is linear.
1209: %
1210: Nevertheless, a non-linearity is introduced, if only a part
1211: of the shower is contained in the calorimeter or if the longitudinal compartments are not
1212: equally calibrated, i.e., if they react differently to minimum ionising particles.
1213: %Even so, for a given shower, in principle each longitudinal compartment has a different sampling fraction, all
1214: %compartments have to be calibrated in the same way. Otherwise, a non-linearity is introduced
1215: %due to the longitudinal fluctuations of the EM shower and due to the dependence of its penetration
1216: %depth on the beam energy.
1217: %
1218: In most practical applications, the shower starts already upstream of the calorimeter and a fraction of its
1219: energy is also deposited behind the calorimeter. This introduces an intrinsic non-linearity of the
1220: energy response due to longitudinal shower fluctuations,
1221: which must be corrected.
1222:
1223: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1224: \begin{figure}[th]
1225: \begin{center}
1226: \psfig{figure=figs/cprof.ps,
1227: bbllx=40,bblly=40,bburx=530,bbury=760,clip, %angle=270,clip,
1228: width=14.cm}
1229: \end{center}
1230: \begin{picture}(0,0)
1231: \put( 5,145){a)}
1232: \put( 5,75){b)}
1233: \put( 5, 5){c)}
1234: \end{picture}
1235: %\vspace{-0.5cm}
1236: \caption{
1237: a) Shape of the energy deposited along the shower axis.
1238: b) Sampling fraction along the shower axis.
1239: c) Sampling fraction rescaled to the shower maximum.
1240: Shown are Monte Carlo simulations for electrons with
1241: beam energies of $10$, $100$\GeV and $500$\GeV and muons with $10$\GeVx.
1242: In c) $l_{start}$ is defined as the beginning of the calorimeter
1243: and $l_{max}$ is the maximum of the shower.
1244: \label{fig:cprof_rebin}}
1245: \end{figure}
1246: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1247:
1248: \subsection{Correction for Upstream Energy Losses using Presampler Detectors}
1249: \label{sec:upstream_correction}
1250: \noindent
1251: The principle of a presampler detector is that the energy deposited in a thin active medium
1252: is proportional to the energy lost in the passive medium in front of the calorimeter.
1253: The difference with respect to a sampling calorimeter is that the
1254: passive material, the ``absorber'', is very thick, typically about $1-2$ \Xzerox, and that
1255: there is only one layer of passive and active material.
1256: Therefore, the calibration scheme is different from the one of
1257: sampling calorimeters where a shower passing a radiation length
1258: is sampled many times. % like the one of eq.~\ref{eq:sampling}.
1259:
1260: If an electron passes through the passive material in front of the presampler,
1261: it continuously loses energy by ionisation.
1262: The total deposited energy in the passive material is approximately constant and can be calculated
1263: assuming the energy is lost by a minimally ionising particle.
1264: However, the electron also emits photons by Bremsstrahlung.
1265: Depending on their energy they either react through Compton scattering or photo-electric effect
1266: (in this case their energy is mainly deposited in the dead material by low energy electrons)
1267: or they do not interact until they create an electron positron ($e^+ e^-$) pair.
1268: The pair can be produced in the passive material, in the
1269: active medium of the presampler or in the sampling calorimeter. In the latter case,
1270: their energy is simply measured in the
1271: calorimeter and nothing has to be done in addition.
1272: %In the first case, the pair will be produced towards the end of the passive material,
1273: %since the probability to create a $e^+ e^-$ pair is proportional to the exponential of the photon path length.
1274: %In the first case, each of the electrons produced by the photon deposits less energy than the one deposited
1275: %by the beam electron passing through the full passive material.
1276: The energy deposited by each particle of
1277: the $e^+ e^-$ pair is therefore in many cases smaller than the energy deposited
1278: by the beam electron passing through the full passive material.
1279: %In the presampler, however,
1280: %the $e^+ e^-$ deposits approximately twice the energy of the beam electron.
1281: In the case where the pair is created
1282: in the presampler itself, the energy measured in the presampler is even largely uncorrelated to the
1283: energy deposited in the passive material.
1284:
1285:
1286: In any case the electrons produced by pair-production will traverse none or part of
1287: the passive material. If one $e^+ e^-$-pair
1288: is created in the passive material, three electrons ionise the active medium.
1289: Two of them have only traversed a small part of the passive material.
1290: The correct calibration constant
1291: is therefore smaller than the one calculated from the inverse sampling fraction of a
1292: minimum ionising particles.
1293:
1294:
1295: The total energy deposited in the active and in the passive material
1296: in and before the presampler $E^{tot}_{0}$
1297: can be reconstructed from:
1298: \begin{eqnarray}
1299: E^{tot}_{0} \; \; = w_{PS} \; E^{act}_{0} \; \; =
1300: %\frac{ E^{act}_{0} + E^{pas}_{0}}{E^{act}_{0}} \; E^{act}_{0} \; \;
1301: \frac{a + b \; E^{act}_{0} }{E^{act}_{0}} \; \;
1302: E^{act}_{0} = a + b \; E^{act}_{0}
1303: \end{eqnarray}
1304: where %$E^{tot}_{0}$ is the reconstructed energy deposited in and before the PS and
1305: $E^{act}_{0}$ is the energy deposited in the active medium of the presampler. % and
1306: %$E^{pas}_{0}$ is the energy deposited in the passive material in and before the presampler.
1307: The calibration coefficient
1308: $a$ represents the average energy lost by ionisation by the beam electron.
1309: Its energy dependence might be caused by low energy photons produced by Bremsstrahlung
1310: that are absorbed in the dead material and by photon nucleon interactions.
1311: The amplification factor $b$ takes into account
1312: that the $e^+ e^-$-pairs produced in the passive material or
1313: in the active medium have only traversed part or none of the
1314: material in front of or in the PS.
1315:
1316: The calibration factors depend on the details of the experimental set-up and have
1317: to be extracted from a Monte Carlo simulation.
1318:
1319: %A similar calibration scheme has already been proposed in Ref.~\cite{gu}.
1320:
1321:
1322:
1323: \section{Electron Energy Reconstruction}
1324: \label{sec:reco}
1325: \subsection{Reconstruction of the Electron Cluster Energy}
1326: \label{sec:clustering}
1327: \noindent
1328: When an electron penetrates the ATLAS calorimeter a compact EM shower is
1329: developed, which deposits most of the energy near the shower axis.
1330: %To reconstruct the electron energy, the energies deposited in several calorimeter
1331: %cells have to be added together. The energy deposits far away from the shower axis get
1332: %increasingly small and they are at some point comparable to the electronic
1333: %noise. Since electronic noise has the same probability
1334: %to give positive and negative contributions
1335: %the average energy in a cell is not changed by noise. However, to ensure a good energy
1336: %resolution it is better to restrict the electron fiducial envelop to the
1337: %core, i.e. the cells far ways from the shower axis are not used
1338: %to reconstruct the electron energy.
1339: %The collection of cells from which the electron energy is measured is called ``cluster''.
1340: %
1341: %Since the radial EM shower energy profile does merely depend on the electron
1342: %energy, the signal loss can be easily corrected. This has the additional advantage
1343: %that no noise cut has to be introduced, which would
1344: %inevitably cut out some part of the signal. The introduction of a noise
1345: %threshold would make an energy dependent correction necessary.
1346: %
1347: %
1348: To reconstruct the electron energy, the energies deposited in a fixed number of calorimeter
1349: cells are added together. No noise cut is applied.
1350: This collection of cells is called ``cluster''.
1351: Since the radial EM shower energy profile depends merely on the electron
1352: energy, the signal loss from cells outside the cluster can be easily corrected.
1353:
1354: The electron cluster is constructed from the second accordion compartment,
1355: where all cells within a square of \standclus~cells around the cell with the
1356: highest energy are merged. For the other accordion compartments
1357: all cells which intersect the geometrical projection of this square are included.
1358: In the first accordion compartment, which has high granularity in the $\eta$-direction,
1359: $8$ cells from each side of the cell with the maximum energy in this compartment
1360: are added to the cluster. For the impact point analysed here, two cells in $\phi$ are included.
1361: Thus, a cluster includes $17{\rm x}2$ cells in the first,
1362: $3{\rm x}3$ cells in the second and $2{\rm x}3$ in the third compartment.
1363: while in the PS $3{\rm x}2$ cells are used to define the visible energy.
1364:
1365:
1366: To reconstruct the electron energy deposited in the accordion calorimeter
1367: the visible energy measured within the
1368: electron cluster defined above is multiplied by a calibration factor:
1369: \begin{equation}
1370: E^{rec}_{acc} = \sum_{i=1,3 } E^{rec}_i =
1371: \frac{1}{d(E) \, \scriptsize f_{samp}}\; \sum_{i=1,3 } E^{vis}_i,
1372: \label{eq:ErecAcc}
1373: \end{equation}
1374: where $E^{vis}_{i}$ is the visible energy in
1375: the $ith$ compartment and
1376: $f_{samp}=0.18$ is the sampling fraction taken for an electron with an
1377: energy of $100$\GeV
1378: (see eq.~\ref{eq:sampling}).
1379: %The true sampling fraction in the accordion calorimeter\footnote{This number can be calculated
1380: %from first principles using the accordion calorimeter cell geometry and the electron muon ratio.}
1381: %is $0.18$ (see eq.~\ref{eq:sampling}).
1382:
1383:
1384: The factor $d$ is depends on the initial electron energy
1385: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:calib_para}c).
1386: Its variation is mainly (about $0.6$\%)
1387: due to the decrease of the sampling fraction towards the end of the shower, and due to
1388: the fact that the shower has already started before entering the accordion calorimeter
1389: as discussed in section~\ref{sec:calibration_long_comp}.
1390: In addition, the factor $d$
1391: corrects for a drop of the total energy of about $10$\% due to
1392: the reduced charge collection near the accordion folds %and the HV resistors
1393: and for energy lost laterally (typically $4$\% of the total electron energy).
1394: %
1395: The fraction of energy outside the electron cluster varies %% XXX increases or decreases
1396: by about $0.3$\% with energy.
1397: The current to energy conversion leads to a decrease of the reconstructed energy
1398: by $0.5$\% at high energies.
1399: Since these effects are correlated, they
1400: do not factorise and are therefore absorbed into one factor.
1401:
1402: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1403: \begin{figure}[th]
1404: \begin{center}
1405: \psfig{figure=figs/calib_para.ps,
1406: bbllx=60,bblly=0,bburx=650,bbury=850,angle=270
1407: ,clip, width=14.5cm}
1408: \end{center}
1409: \begin{picture}(0,0)
1410: \put(5, 60){a)}
1411: \put(78, 60){b)}
1412: \put(5, 10){c)}
1413: \put(78, 10){d)}
1414: \end{picture}
1415: \vspace{-0.5cm}
1416: \caption{Calibration parameters extracted from the
1417: Monte Carlo simulation as a function of the beam energy.
1418: The calibration parameters are defined in eq.~\ref{eq:Erec}.
1419: The lines illustrate a parameterisation of the energy dependence of the calibration coefficients.
1420: \label{fig:calib_para}}
1421: \end{figure}
1422: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
1423:
1424:
1425: \subsection{Correction for Upstream Energy Losses}
1426: \label{sec:upstreamlosses}
1427: \noindent
1428: Following the correction procedure for energy losses in the upstream material,
1429: %using the presampler detector has been
1430: described in section~\ref{sec:upstream_correction},
1431: the total energy deposited in and before the PS is reconstructed by:
1432: \begin{equation}
1433: E^{rec}_{0} = a + b \; E^{vis}_0,
1434: \label{eq:ErecPs}
1435: \end{equation}
1436: where $E^{vis}_0$ is the visible energy in the PS cluster.
1437:
1438: The calibration parameters $a$ and $b$ are obtained from the Monte Carlo
1439: simulation.
1440: As an example, the correlation between the visible energy deposited
1441: in the PS and the true energy deposited upstream and in the PS
1442: is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dmcalib}a and Fig.~\ref{fig:dmcalib}b
1443: for electrons with $E = 10$ and $E = 180$\GeVx.
1444: The calibration parameters $a$ and $b$ are determined by a linear fit.
1445:
1446: The offset $a$ rises linearly with the beam energy
1447: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:calib_para}a) and can be easily parameterised.
1448: The slope $b$ rises logarithmically (see Fig.~\ref{fig:calib_para}b)).
1449: %is almost constant (between $11.2-11.5$), but for a precise
1450: %reconstruction its energy dependence needs to be taken into account.
1451: The value of $b$ corresponds to about $60\%$ of the inverse sampling fraction of a minimally ionising particle
1452: completely passing through the full active and passive medium.
1453:
1454:
1455: \subsection{Correction for Energy Losses between the Presampler and the Accordion}
1456: \label{sec:psstriplosses}
1457: \noindent
1458: The region between the PS and the first accordion compartment
1459: contains support structures,
1460: electronics and cables. The amount of passive material depends on
1461: the impact point in $\eta$ and $\phi$.
1462:
1463: At this point, a muon with an energy of $10$\GeV deposits
1464: $0.6$\% of its energy in the passive material in front of the calorimeter
1465: and about $0.15$\% in the passive material between the PS and the first
1466: accordion compartment.
1467: %This reflects that there is in total more passive material in
1468: %front of the presampler (mainly the cryostat) than there is material between
1469: %the presampler and the first accordion compartment.
1470: %
1471: However, electrons deposit a larger fraction of their energy in the material between the PS and
1472: the first accordion compartment. % is more significant, since there are more particles produced
1473: %by the EM shower passing through this region.
1474: An electron with $10$\GeV deposits on average
1475: $3.6$\% of its energy in the passive material in front of the calorimeter and
1476: $4.1$\% in the passive material between the PS and the first
1477: accordion compartment.
1478: The fact that more energy is deposited behind the PS than before
1479: %This means that more energy is lost after the PS than before. This effect
1480: gets more pronounced towards higher energies.
1481: An electron with $180$\GeV deposits
1482: $0.45$\% of its energy in the passive material in front of the calorimeter and
1483: $0.85$\% in the passive material between the PS and the first
1484: accordion compartment.
1485:
1486: The energies deposited before and just after the PS
1487: are linked via the dynamical behaviour
1488: of the EM shower development.
1489: %Since this correlation is rather complex, it is better to
1490: %correct with the measured PS energy, the energy deposited before the
1491: %PS and with a different observable the energy between the
1492: %PS and the first accordion compartment.
1493: %In this way, one can correct better effect-by-effect.
1494: %
1495: According to the Monte Carlo simulation, a good correlation
1496: to the energy deposited between the PS
1497: and the first accordion compartment can be obtained from an observable combining the
1498: energy in the PS and the energy measured in the first accordion
1499: compartment, namely:
1500: \begin{eqnarray}
1501: E^{rec}_{PS/Strip} = c \; {(E^{vis}_{0} \cdot E^{vis}_{1})}^{0.5}.
1502: \label{eq:EpsStrip_rec}
1503: \end{eqnarray}
1504: The value of the exponent in eq.~\ref{eq:EpsStrip_rec} has been found empirically.
1505: %It is connected to the dynamics of an EM shower, but can not be easily calculated from first principles.
1506: The calibration coefficient $c$ is obtained from the Monte Carlo simulation.
1507: The result of the simulation is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:calib_para}d) as a function of the
1508: beam energy.
1509: %As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:calib_para}d,
1510: %the parameter $c$ is around $2.8$ and decreases toward $2$ for higher energies.
1511:
1512: As an example, the correlation between ${(E^{vis}_{0} \cdot E^{vis}_{1})}^{0.5}$
1513: and the true energy deposited between the PS and the first compartment
1514: is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dmcalib}c and Fig.~\ref{fig:dmcalib}d
1515: for electrons with $E = 10$ and $E = 180$\GeVx.
1516: The calibration parameter $c$ is obtained as the slope of a linear fit.
1517: While this assumption is justified for low energies, at
1518: high energies deviations from a linear correlation are observed.
1519: The exponent in eq.~\ref{eq:EpsStrip_rec} seems to be slightly energy dependent.
1520: Since, however, the dead material correction is less important at high energies,
1521: within the present accuracy this effect can be neglected.
1522: %
1523:
1524:
1525:
1526: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1527: \begin{figure}[th]
1528: \begin{center}
1529: \psfig{figure=figs/cdmcalib.eps,
1530: %bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=560,bbury=630,angle=270,clip,
1531: width=14.cm}
1532: \end{center}
1533: \begin{picture}(0,0)
1534: \put( 5, 5){c)}
1535: \put( 75, 5){d)}
1536: \put( 5,80){a)}
1537: \put( 75,80){b)}
1538: \end{picture}
1539: \vspace{-0.5cm}
1540: \caption{Mean energy lost before and in the PS as a function of the visible energy in the PS
1541: for electrons of $10$ (a) and $180$\GeV (b).
1542: Mean energy lost after the PS and before the first accordion compartment
1543: as a function of the estimator $(E^{vis}_{0} \cdot E^{vis}_{1})^{0.5}$
1544: for electrons of $10$ (c) and $180$\GeV (d).
1545: The dashed lines indicate the linear approximation in the range, where the calibration
1546: parameters have been extracted.
1547: \label{fig:dmcalib}}
1548: \end{figure}
1549: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
1550:
1551: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
1552: \subsection{Correction for Downstream Energy Losses}
1553: \label{sec:downstreamlosses}
1554: \noindent
1555: In the region analysed in this study, i.e. $\eta=0.687$,
1556: the electron passes materials with a total thickness
1557: of about $30$ \Xzerox. Therefore
1558: the energy fraction leaking out behind the calorimeter is small.
1559:
1560: The amount of energy leaking out of the back of the calorimeter
1561: can be determined from the Monte Carlo simulation.
1562: On average, about $0.35$\% of the initial electron energy with $E= 10$\GeV is deposited
1563: behind the calorimeter,
1564: increasing linearly to $0.45$\% for $E= 245$\GeVx.
1565: Thus, the longitudinal energy leakage
1566: introduces a non-linearity of about $0.1$\% in this energy range.
1567:
1568: This effect is corrected on average for each energy point.
1569:
1570: %However,
1571: %it is better to exploit the longitudinal calorimeter segmentation to correct for the leakage
1572: %event-by-event using
1573: %the mean effective shower depth $\av{l}$, defined as the energy weighted barycenter
1574: %over the
1575: %distance $l$ along the shower axis (measured in $\Xzerox$)
1576: %in the middle of each calorimeter compartment.
1577: %
1578: %The fraction of energy leaking out of the calorimeter as a function of the reconstructed
1579: %effective shower depth
1580: %is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cleak}. Shown here are Monte Carlo simulations for electron beam energies
1581: %between $10$ and $180$\GeVx. For a given shower effective depth, the leakage fraction is
1582: %almost independent of the initial electron energy. The correction therefore depends only on $\av{l}$,
1583: %and not on the electron energy.
1584:
1585: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1586: %\begin{figure}[th]
1587: %\begin{center}
1588: %\psfig{figure=figs/cleak.ps,
1589: %bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=560,bbury=630,angle=270,clip,width=12.cm}
1590: %\end{center}
1591: %\caption{Energy fraction longitudinally leaking out of the back of the calorimeter as a function of the reconstructed effective
1592: %shower depth. Shown are Monte Carlo simulations (histograms) of electrons with
1593: %energies $E = 10$\GeVx, $100$\GeV and $180$\GeVx.
1594: %Overlayed as line is a parameterisation.
1595: %\label{fig:cleak}}
1596: %\end{figure}
1597: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
1598:
1599:
1600: \subsection{Correction for the Impact Position within a Cell}
1601: \label{sec:geometry_correction}
1602: \noindent
1603: Due to the complex structure of the accordion folds, the energy response changes
1604: as a function of the $\phi$ position of the impinging particle within a cell.
1605: The main reasons are the varying amount of
1606: passive absorber material %due to the imperfect overlap of the absorbers
1607: %(see Fig.~\ref{fig:x0vscm})
1608: and changes in the electric fields.
1609: In the $\eta$-direction, a drop of the measured
1610: energy is observed, if the electron does not impinge on the cell centre.
1611: This effect is due to an incomplete containment of the electron
1612: in the cluster\footnote{
1613: Since the beam for this data sample was mostly covering the central part of the cell, this
1614: effect is small and does not require a correction in this analysis.}.
1615: These effects have been already reported in Ref.~\cite{modul0}.
1616:
1617:
1618: %To correct for this effect the electron impact position within a cell is reconstructed
1619: %from the calorimeter using:
1620: %\begin{eqnarray}
1621: %\Phi_{calo} = \frac{\sum_{i=1,N_{cell}} E_i^{vis} \; \Phi_i}{\sum_{i=1,N_{cell}} E_i^{vis} }
1622: %\; \; \; \;
1623: %\eta_{calo} = \frac{\sum_{i=1,N_{cell}} E_i^{vis} \; \eta_i}{\sum_{i=1,N_{cell}} E_i^{vis} },
1624: %\label{eq:eta_phi}
1625: %\end{eqnarray}
1626: %where $E_i$ is visible the energy deposited in one cell and $\Phi_i$ and $\eta_i$ are the nominal
1627: %cell positions. To reconstruct $\eta_{calo}$ ($\Phi_{calo}$) only the cells in the first (second)
1628: %compartment are used.
1629: %The impact position within a cell in cell units
1630: %( $d\eta_{calo}$ and $d\Phi_{calo}$ is then calculated from the known
1631: %cell granularity).
1632:
1633: %Because of the finite size of the cells, the energy weighted barycentre is systematically shifted
1634: %towards the centre of the cell. To correct this bias, the $\Phi$ reconstructed with the calorimeter
1635: %is compared to the one measured with the beam chambers $\Phi_{BC}$.
1636: %The difference $\Phi_{BC} - \Phi_{calo}$ measured as a function of $\Phi_{calo}$ has the form
1637: %of the letter $S$ ($S$-shape), i.e. for a cell impact in the middle of the cell ($\Phi_{calo}=0$)
1638: %there is no bias, while for cell impact positions below (above) $\Phi_{calo}=0$ there is
1639: %a positive (negative) bias. The form of the distribution can be parameterised with
1640: %$a + b \arctan{((\Phi_{calo} -c)/d)}$, where $a$, $b$, $c$ and $d$ are adjusted parameters.
1641: %This parameterisation is used to correct the calorimeter position measurement.
1642:
1643: The electron $\phi$ impact position within a cell is reconstructed
1644: from the energy weighted barycentre of the second layer.
1645: The bias due to the finite calorimeter cell size is corrected using
1646: the average difference of the position measurements provided by the calorimeter and by the beam chamber
1647: measured as a function of calorimeter position measurement (``S-shape'').
1648: The corrected $\Phi$ impact position
1649: normalised to middle cell units is called $\Phi_{calo}^{corr}$.
1650: %More details can be found in Ref.~\cite{modul0}. %% only eta !
1651:
1652: The meassured dependence of the mean energy on $\Phi_{calo}^{corr}$
1653: is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:etaphicorr} for an electron beam energy of $E=100 \GeVx$.
1654: The peak-to-peak modulation for different impact positions is about $1.5\%$.
1655: %
1656: %The modulation can be parameterised using an energy independent periodical function of the form:
1657: %\begin{eqnarray}
1658: %\label{eq:phi_modulation}
1659: %\frac{E(d\Phi_{calo}^{corr})}{E(d\Phi_{calo}^{corr}=0)} =
1660: %a + b (\Phi_{calo}^{corr} - c) + d (\Phi_{calo}^{corr} - c)^2 +
1661: % e \cos{(8 \pi (\Phi_{calo}^{corr} - c))} + f \cos{(16 \pi (\Phi_{calo}^{corr} - c))}
1662: %\end{eqnarray}
1663: %where $a$, $b$, $c$, $d$, $e$ and $f$ are parameters adjusted to the data.
1664: The modulation is parameterised with a function with eight free parameters having
1665: a sinusoidal term correcting for the accordion structure and a parabola term
1666: correcting cluster containment effects.
1667: The form of the adjustment is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:etaphicorr} as line.
1668:
1669: %The mean energy is altered by this correction
1670: %by less than $0.02$\% for all studied energies.
1671: %The resolution is not changed for energies up to XXX\GeV and
1672: %then steadily improves to XXX\% at XXX\GeVx.
1673: The correction is obtained from the data run with an electron beam energy of $100$\GeVx,
1674: where the largest data sample was available, and is applied to all other energies.
1675:
1676:
1677: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1678: \begin{figure}[th]
1679: \begin{center}
1680: \psfig{figure=figs/detadphi_cor.eps,
1681: %bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=600,bbury=750,angle=270,clip,
1682: angle=270,width=14.cm}
1683: \end{center}
1684: %\begin{picture}(0,0)
1685: %\put( 10,10){a)}
1686: %\put( 90,10){b)}
1687: %\end{picture}
1688: \vspace{-0.5cm}
1689: \caption{Correction for the mean energy as a function of the $\phi$ impact
1690: position within a cell obtained from a data run with electrons at $E=100$\GeVx.
1691: Overlayed as line is a parameterisation.
1692: % b) Correction for the mean energy as a function of the $\eta$ impact
1693: % position within a cell
1694: \label{fig:etaphicorr}}
1695: \end{figure}
1696: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
1697:
1698:
1699: %A similar effect is observed for the impact position in the $\eta$-direction.
1700: %There the dependence of the mean energy drop towards the edges of the
1701: %cells (see Fig.~\ref{fig:etaphicorr}b). The distribution is asymmetric.
1702: %For cell impact position left from the cell centre a drop of about $1.5\%$ is observed...
1703: %Since most of the events are in the region where the correction is small, no
1704: %improvement of the resolution is obtained. Therefore the correction is not applied.
1705:
1706:
1707:
1708: \subsection{Corrections for Bremsstrahlung Photons lost in the Beam-line}
1709: \label{sec:brems}
1710: \noindent
1711: Photons produced by Bremsstrahlung of the beam electron in the passive material before the last
1712: trimming magnets, $40$ to $170$~{\rm m} upstream of the detector,
1713: cannot reach the calorimeter.
1714: Therefore a correction has to be applied to the electron energy measured by the
1715: calorimeter.
1716:
1717: The amount of material in this region associated with the NA45 experiment
1718: is not well known and has to be estimated.
1719: In the beam-line, there is about $0.03$ \Xzero of air,
1720: and about $0.01$~\Xzero of material from the
1721: beam pipe windows.
1722: In the Monte Carlo simulation this ``far'' material is modelled by a thin spherical shell of
1723: Aluminium\footnote{The material is simulated as a sphere to ensure the same amount
1724: of material for each $\eta$ direction. In the real experiment the beam-line stays constant and the calorimeter is rotated.
1725: In the Monte Carlo simulation the direction of the beam is changed.}.
1726: Since the energy lost by Bremsstrahlung leads to a tail on the low energy side
1727: of the reconstructed energy distribution, the amount of material can be estimated
1728: by comparing the tails of the reconstructed energy distribution in Monte Carlo simulations with different
1729: amounts of material and in the data at various beam energies.
1730: An aluminium thickness of $0.04 \pm 0.01$~\Xzero
1731: %$3.5$\mm with an uncertainty of $\pm 1$\mm
1732: has been estimated in this manner.
1733:
1734: The particles produced by Bremsstrahlung in the "far material" are not tracked any further in the
1735: simulation, but their total energy is recorded.
1736: The correction can then be estimated by looking at the reconstructed %\footnote{
1737: %The energy reconstructed as described in section~\ref{sec:linresults}
1738: %.}
1739: energy with and without the lost energy added to the measured calorimeter energy.
1740: %
1741: %This effect can influence the low energy tail of the energy distribution and can hence influence
1742: %also the measured mean.
1743: %For instance, electrons with $180$\GeV ($10$\GeVx)
1744: %that lose $2\%$ of their energy by Bremsstrahlung
1745: %in the ``far material'', arrive with an energy at the calorimeter which is about $3 \sigma$ ($1 \sigma$)
1746: %lower than the nominal beam energy.
1747:
1748: If the photon energy is relatively large, the electron energy can be considerably lower than the original
1749: beam electron. Since the beam optics\footnote{In this region there are no bending magnets, but
1750: there are correction dipoles and quadrupoles.}
1751: is optimised for electrons with the nominal beam
1752: energy, there is a certain probability that the electron will not reach
1753: the scintillator S3 and S4 defining the beam spot.
1754: %
1755: This effect has been evaluated using a simulation of the beam-line based on the TURTLE program\cite{turtle}.
1756: At a beam energy of $10$\GeVx, for an electron having lost $1\%$, $5\%$ or $10\%$ of its energy,
1757: only for
1758: $98\%$, $77\%$ and $50\%$ of the events the electron arrives in the calorimeter.
1759: For a beam energy of $50$\GeVx,
1760: %for a photon having lost $1\%$, $5\%$ or $10\%$ of its energy only in
1761: the corresponding probabilities are
1762: $100\%$, $86\%$ and $56\%$. % of the events the electron arrives in the calorimeter.
1763: This correction is applied to the Monte Carlo simulation
1764: as an event weight for each measured distribution.
1765: %At low electron energies, this effects lowers the total reconstructed energy by about $XXX\%$.
1766:
1767:
1768: The correction due to Bremsstrahlung is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cbrems}.
1769: For an electron energy of $E = 10$\GeV the peak of the
1770: reconstructed energy distribution is shifted by $0.25$\%, at $E = 50$\GeV by $0.15$\%,
1771: and at $E = 180$\GeV by $0.09$\%. The non-linearity induced by Bremsstrahlung in the ``far'' material
1772: is therefore about $0.2$\% before correction.
1773:
1774:
1775: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1776: \begin{figure}[th]
1777: \begin{center}
1778: \psfig{figure=figs/brems.ps,
1779: bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=560,bbury=630,angle=270,clip,width=12.cm}
1780: \end{center}
1781: %\vspace{-0.5cm}
1782: \caption{
1783: Correction for the effect of Bremsstrahlung in the ``far'' material
1784: as a function of the electron beam energy.
1785: The solid line indicates the correction for the standard beam-line set-up. The band
1786: gives the uncertainty due to variation of the ``far'' material.
1787: \label{fig:cbrems}}
1788: \end{figure}
1789: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
1790:
1791:
1792:
1793:
1794: \subsection{The Final Electron Calibration Scheme}
1795: \label{sec:final_calib_scheme}
1796: \noindent
1797: The final electron calibration scheme is a sum of the individual corrections described above:
1798: \begin{eqnarray}
1799: E^{rec} = \left (
1800: a(E) + b(E) \; E^{vis}_{0} +
1801: c(E) \; (E^{vis}_{0} \cdot E^{vis}_{1})^{0.5}
1802: + \frac{1}{d(E) \, f_{samp} } \; \sum_{i = 1,3} E^{vis}_i \right ) \nonumber \\
1803: %\cdot f_{\rm brems}(E)
1804: \cdot f_{\rm cell \, impact}(\Delta \Phi) \cdot (1 + f_{\rm leakage}(E)),
1805: \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
1806: \label{eq:Erec}
1807: \end{eqnarray}
1808: where $E^{vis}_{i}$ is the visible cluster energy
1809: deposited in the $i$th ($i=0,3$) calorimeter compartment,
1810: $f_{samp}=0.18$ is the sampling fraction for an electron with $E=100$\GeV and
1811: the functions $f$ correct (event-by-event) for the effect
1812: of longitudinal leakage ($f_{\rm leakage}$) (see section~\ref{sec:downstreamlosses})
1813: and of the cell impact position ($f_{\rm cell \, impact}$)
1814: (see section~\ref{sec:geometry_correction}).
1815: The mean reconstructed energy is in addition corrected for upstream
1816: Bremsstrahlung losses ($f_{\rm brems}$) (see section~\ref{sec:brems}).
1817:
1818: %The calibration parameter $a$, $b$, $c$, $d$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:calib_para}.
1819: %The parameters $a$ is expressed in units of \GeVx,
1820: %$b$, $c$ and $d$ have no units.
1821: Since the calibration parameters slightly depend on the energy to be measured,
1822: an iterative procedure is needed to reconstruct the electron energy.
1823:
1824:
1825: %The calibration parameters are extracted from the Monte Carlo simulation.
1826: %This has the advantage that the various calibrations and corrections can be worked out
1827: %effect by effect, but it requires an excellent
1828: %description of the detector geometry and assumes
1829: %that the description of the physics processes implemented in the \Geant Monte Carlo simulation
1830: %is accurate enough.
1831: %Uncertainties in the detector description can be estimated and included in the systematic uncertainty.
1832: %The accuracy of the implementation of the physics processes in EM showers is more difficult to evaluate.
1833: %A crude way is to evaluate a systematic uncertainty from the dependence of the cut-off parameter. {\it number to be provided }
1834: %Some information on the validity of the Monte Carlo simulation can be
1835: %obtained by comparing it to the data.
1836: %This is done in section \ref{sec:data_mc_comparision}.
1837:
1838:
1839:
1840:
1841: \section{Comparison of Data and Monte Carlo Simulations}
1842: \label{sec:data_mc_comparision}
1843: \noindent
1844: %The shape of the mean reconstructed energy as a function of shower depth $l$ is shown in
1845: %Fig.~\ref{fig:long_prof}.
1846: %In each calorimeter compartment one measurement is made.
1847: %The data points (closed circles) are well described by the Monte Carlo simulation.
1848: %At the lowest electron beam energy of $E_{beam} = 10$\GeV
1849: %the shower starts early and most of the energy per radiation
1850: %length is deposited in the first compartment. At the highest electron beam energy
1851: %of $E_{beam} = 180$\GeV most of the energy per radiation length is deposited in the second compartment.
1852: %In all cases only a small fraction of the energy is deposited in the last calorimeter compartment.
1853: %These measured shower shapes are compatible with an increase of the mean shower depth
1854: %with the logarithm of the electron energy.
1855: %
1856: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1857: %\begin{figure}[th]
1858: %\begin{center}
1859: %\psfig{figure=figs/long_prof_damc.ps,
1860: %bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=560,bbury=630,angle=270,clip,
1861: %width=16.cm}
1862: %\end{center}
1863: %\begin{picture}(0,0)
1864: %\put(15, 5){c)} \put(90, 7){d)}
1865: %\put(15, 75){a)} \put(90, 75){b)}
1866: %\end{picture}
1867: %\vspace{-0.5cm}
1868: %\caption{Shape of the reconstructed energy as a function of
1869: %the shower depth
1870: %for beam energies of $E_{beam}=10$\GeV (a)$, E_{beam}=60$\GeV (b), $E_{beam}=100$\GeV (c) and $E_{beam}=180$\GeV (d).
1871: %Shown are data (closed circles) and a \Geant~Monte Carlo simulation (lines).
1872: %{\it XXXX should one make a ratio plot, i.e. DATA/MC ???
1873: %}
1874: %\label{fig:long_prof}}
1875: %\end{figure}
1876: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
1877: %
1878: Since the calibration scheme described above is based on the Monte Carlo simulation,
1879: it is important to verify that the Monte Carlo simulation reproduces
1880: the total energy distribution,
1881: the energies measured in each layer and the lateral development of the EM shower.
1882:
1883: The mean reconstructed energy in the PS and in the first and second
1884: compartment of the accordion
1885: is described by the Monte Carlo simulation for all energies within $\pm 2\%$.
1886: In addition, also the shape of the energy distributions within each compartment
1887: are well described. As an example,
1888: the shapes of the visible energy fraction distributions
1889: are shown
1890: in Fig.~\ref{fig:edis100} for $E=10$ and $E=100$\GeVx.
1891:
1892: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1893: \begin{figure}[th]
1894: \begin{center}
1895: \psfig{figure=figs/edist_layer2.ps,
1896: bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=560,bbury=630,angle=270,clip,
1897: width=14.cm}
1898: \end{center}
1899: \begin{picture}(0,0)
1900: \put(5, 62){a)} \put(75, 62){b)}
1901: \put(5, 1){c)} \put(75, 1){d)}
1902: \end{picture}
1903: %\vspace{-0.5cm}
1904: \caption{
1905: Visible energy fraction distribution for electrons with $E=10$\GeV
1906: and $E=100$\GeV
1907: in the PS (a) and the first (b), second (c) and third (d)
1908: compartment of the accordion calorimeter. Shown are data (circles)
1909: and a Monte Carlo simulation (line).
1910: The band indicates the uncertainty
1911: in the Monte Carlo simulation due to the ``far'' material and the material
1912: in front of the PS.
1913: \label{fig:edis100}}
1914: \end{figure}
1915: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
1916:
1917:
1918: The distribution of the reconstructed total energy distribution is shown
1919: in Fig.~\ref{fig:edis} for electron beam energies of $10$, $50$, $100$ and $180$\GeVx.
1920: The beam energy in the Monte Carlo simulation is scaled to the one
1921: in the data. The Monte Carlo simulation gives a good description of the data.
1922:
1923: %At low energy the MC is higher in the low energy tail,
1924: %at high energy the MC is lower...
1925: %{\it XXXX Why ?? This can be influence by tuning the far material. The problem is that
1926: % the low energy point what less material while the high energy points want more.
1927: % What can can this be ? ..and where it is seen in the single compartments which are
1928: % just summed together ?
1929: %}
1930:
1931: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1932: \begin{figure}[th]
1933: \begin{center}
1934: \psfig{figure=figs/edist2.ps,
1935: bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=560,bbury=630,angle=270,clip,
1936: width=14.cm}
1937: \end{center}
1938: \begin{picture}(0,0)
1939: \put(5, 65){a)} \put(75, 65){b)}
1940: \put(5, 0){c)} \put(75, 0){d)}
1941: \end{picture}
1942: %\vspace{-0.5cm}
1943: \caption{
1944: Shape of the reconstructed energy distribution for electrons with
1945: (a) $E=10$, (b) $50$, (c) $100$ and (d) $180$\GeVx.
1946: Shown are data and a Monte Carlo simulation.
1947: %No corrections for Bremsstrahlung or longitudinal leakage have been applied.
1948: %{\it XXX put here pions ?}
1949: The band indicates the uncertainty
1950: in the Monte Carlo simulation due to the ``far'' material and the material
1951: in front of the PS.
1952: \label{fig:edis}}
1953: \end{figure}
1954: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1955:
1956: The shape of the energy distribution in the $\eta$-direction % radial to the shower axis
1957: measured in the first compartment
1958: is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lat_prof} for electron beam energies of
1959: $E=10$, $50$, $100$ and $E=180$\GeVx. The $\eta$-position is calculated
1960: with respect to the shower barycentre in the first compartment and expressed
1961: in units of read-out cells.
1962: %The fine granularity of the first accordion compartment makes such a plot meaningful.
1963: %Each bin corresponds to one read-out cell ("strip").
1964: %
1965: Due to the compactness of an EM shower the radial extension depends only slightly
1966: on the beam energy.
1967: %
1968: The distribution is found to be asymmetric (see also in Ref.~\cite{strip}). %,
1969: %i.e. on the left (negative) side more energy is deposited than on the right side.
1970: %This behaviour has already been observed in Ref.~\cite{strip}.
1971: At low electron beam energies,
1972: the Monte Carlo simulation gives an excellent description of the data.
1973: In particular, the asymmetry is well reproduced.
1974: At high energies the data distribution is slightly broader than predicted by in the Monte Carlo simulation.
1975: %This difference might be explained by the cross-talk mentioned in section~\ref{sec:elec_calib}.
1976: %The applied correction only corrects the cell energy, but does not redistribute the energy
1977: %among the cells.
1978:
1979: %{\it XXX ...to be investigated: fix a strip number, reject events where maximum is elsewhere,
1980: % parallel beam in data, but divergent in MC, effect of deta, dphi cuts}
1981:
1982:
1983:
1984: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1985: \begin{figure}[th]
1986: \begin{center}
1987: \psfig{figure=figs/lat_prof.ps,
1988: bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=560,bbury=630,angle=270,clip,
1989: width=14.cm}
1990: \end{center}
1991: \begin{picture}(0,0)
1992: \put(5, 0){c)} \put(75, 0){d)}
1993: \put(5, 65){a)} \put(75, 65){b)}
1994: \end{picture}
1995: %\vspace{-0.5cm}
1996: \caption{Shape of the energy distribution as a function of
1997: the $\eta$-direction in the
1998: first calorimeter compartment
1999: for beam energies of (a) $E=10$\GeVx, (b) $60$\GeVx, (c) $100$\GeVx and (d) $180$\GeVx.
2000: Shown are data (closed symbols) and a Monte Carlo simulation (lines).
2001: To illustrate the energy dependence the data with an beam energy of $E=10$\GeV are superimposed in d)
2002: to the data with $E=180$\GeVx.
2003: The systematic uncertainty
2004: in the Monte Carlo simulation due to the ``far'' material and the material
2005: in front of the PS is shown, but is not visible.
2006: \label{fig:lat_prof}}
2007: \end{figure}
2008: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
2009:
2010:
2011:
2012:
2013: %The reconstructed mean energy as a function of the reconstructed energy in the presampler
2014: %and the mean reconstructed shower depth is shown for
2015: %$E=10$\GeV and $E=180$\GeV in Fig.~\ref{fig:Evsps}.
2016: %The small dependence of the reconstructed energy on these quantities demonstrates
2017: %that the calorimeter system is well calibrated. The response is independent of the
2018: %longitudinal shower fluctuations. The data are described by the Monte Carlo simulation
2019: %within $1\%$.
2020: %
2021: %
2022: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2023: %\begin{figure}[th]
2024: %\begin{center}
2025: %\psfig{figure=figs/Evsps.ps,
2026: %bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=560,bbury=630,angle=270,clip,
2027: %width=16.cm}
2028: %\end{center}
2029: %\begin{picture}(0,0)
2030: %\put(15, 75){a)} \put(90, 75){b)}
2031: %\put(15, 5){c)} \put(90, 5){d)}
2032: %\end{picture}
2033: %\vspace{-0.5cm}
2034: %\caption{Reconstructed energy as a function of the reconstructed
2035: %energy in the presampler (a) and (b) and as a function of the
2036: %shower depth (c) and (d)
2037: %for electrons with $E=10$\GeV (a,c) and $E=180$\GeV (b,d).
2038: %Shown are data (closed circles) and a Monte Carlo simulation (lines).
2039: %\label{fig:Evsps}}
2040: %\end{figure}
2041: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
2042:
2043: In conclusion, the Monte Carlo simulation predictions
2044: are in good agreement with the shower development measured for the data.
2045:
2046:
2047:
2048: \section{Determination of the Pion Contamination using Monte Carlo Simulation}
2049: \label{sec:pion_contamination}
2050: \noindent
2051: The instrumentation of the H8 beam-line used in the present analysis did not allow
2052: for a direct measurement of the
2053: pion contamination in the electron beam. Only the signal of the scintillator behind the
2054: calorimeter can be used to reject pions. %A Cerenkov counter was not operational.
2055: The influence of a possible pion contamination
2056: %on the comparison of data and Monte Carlo simulation
2057: has therefore to be estimated by comparing the electron and pion energy shapes
2058: predicted by the Monte Carlo simulation to the one measured in the data.
2059:
2060: %For one electron run with a beam energy of $50$\GeVx, no on-line
2061: %pion veto based on a scintillator behind the calorimeter was applied.
2062: %In this run, all pions in the electron beam can be measured and the ability
2063: %of the Monte Carlo simulation to describe the interaction of pions in the
2064: %EM calorimeter can be tested. From the shape of the measured energy distribution
2065: %the fraction of pions under the electron peak can be estimated.
2066: %
2067: %The reconstructed energy spectrum is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cpion2}.
2068: %An appropriate mixture of the electron and the pion simulation is able to describe it.
2069: %The dotted line illustrates a pion simulation, the dashed one an electron simulation.
2070: %The peak at very low energies is due to pions traversing the calorimeter
2071: %as minimally ionising particles, the wide distribution around $25$\GeV is due
2072: %to pions undergoing a strong interaction and leaving only part of
2073: %their energy in the EM calorimeter. The tail towards high energies
2074: %is caused by pions depositing most of their energy fully electromagnetically.
2075:
2076: Since the \LAr calorimeter has a thickness of about one interaction length,
2077: most pions deposit only a fraction of their incident energy.
2078: %Therefore most of the pions with the same beam energy as the electrons under study,
2079: %do not influence the measurement of the electron energy.
2080: However, a small fraction
2081: of them can deposit most of their energy in the \LAr calorimeter. For instance,
2082: at $E=10$\GeV about $3$\% of the pions deposit more than $8$\GeV
2083: in the \LAr calorimeter.
2084: Since these pions can influence the measurements of the electron energy,
2085: their fraction has to be determined.
2086: %Since the shape of their energy distribution is decreasing towards
2087: %the beam energy, the low energy tail can be used to determine
2088: %the pion fraction in the data.
2089: %
2090: %Since the Monte Carlo simulation gives a reasonable description of the
2091: %reconstructed energy spectrum, the low energy tail of the measured
2092: %energy distribution can be used to study the effect of pion contamination
2093: %also for the other energies where only the pions which are absorbed in
2094: %the EM calorimeter have been recorded.
2095:
2096: %The fraction of pions in the electron beam can be estimated using Monte Carlo simulations.
2097: Pions which deposit a lot of energy in the \LAr calorimeter
2098: interact on average later in the
2099: \LAr calorimeter than do electrons. %, i.e. they deposit less energy in the first calorimeter
2100: %compartment ($E_1^{rec}$) and more
2101: %in the second ($E_2^{rec}$) and the third ($E_3^{rec}$) ones than electrons.
2102: Compared to electrons of the same beam energy
2103: they deposit therefore less energy in the first compartment and more in the second and third ones.
2104: The ratio $E_1^{vis}/(E_2^{vis}+E_3^{vis})$ is
2105: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cpion}a for $E = 10 \GeV$ and Fig.~\ref{fig:cpion}b for $E = 50 \GeV$
2106: for data and an appropriate mixture of electrons and pions.
2107: The Monte Carlo simulation is able to describe the data.
2108: %The pion fraction can therefore be determined.
2109: The fraction of pions in the electron beam
2110: is determined for each energy
2111: and varies from $2$\% at $10$\GeV to $22$\% at $180$\GeVx.
2112: %
2113: The effect on the electron energy measurement will be discussed in section~\ref{sec:syslinresults}.
2114:
2115:
2116: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2117: %\begin{figure}[th]
2118: %\begin{center}
2119: %\psfig{figure=figs/cpion2.ps,
2120: %bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=560,bbury=700,angle=270,clip,width=12.cm}
2121: %\end{center}
2122: %%\vspace{-0.5cm}
2123: %\caption{Shape of the reconstructed energy for data and Monte Carlo simulations
2124: % for electrons at $E=50$\GeVx.
2125: %Shown are electron data (closed circles)
2126: %and \Geant~Monte Carlo simulations
2127: %for electrons (dashed), pions (dotted) and a mixture of electrons and pions (solid).
2128: %\label{fig:cpion2}}
2129: %\end{figure}
2130: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
2131:
2132: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2133: \begin{figure}[th]
2134: \begin{center}
2135: %\psfig{figure=figs/cesti_10.ps,
2136: %bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=570,bbury=770,angle=270,clip,width=6.5cm}
2137: %\psfig{figure=figs/cesti_50.ps,
2138: %bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=570,bbury=770,angle=270,clip,width=6.5cm}
2139: \psfig{figure=figs/cesti_10.ps,
2140: bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=570,bbury=770,angle=270,clip,width=12.cm}
2141: \psfig{figure=figs/cesti_50.ps,
2142: bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=570,bbury=770,angle=270,clip,width=12.cm}
2143: \end{center}
2144: \begin{picture}(0,0)
2145: \put(10, 90){a)} \put(10, 5){b)}
2146: \end{picture}
2147: \vspace{-0.5cm}
2148: \caption{
2149: Shape of the ratio of the first ($E_1$) over the sum of the second ($E_2$)
2150: and of the third ($E_3$) calorimeter compartment.
2151: Shown are data (closed circles)
2152: with $E = 10$\GeV (a) and $E = 50$\GeV (b)
2153: and Monte Carlo simulations
2154: for electrons (dashed), pions (dotted) and
2155: an appropriate mixture of electrons and pions (solid).
2156: \label{fig:cpion}}
2157: \end{figure}
2158: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
2159:
2160:
2161: %\newpage
2162: \section{Linearity and Resolution Results}
2163: \label{sec:results}
2164: \subsection{Linearity Results}
2165: \label{sec:linresults}
2166: \noindent
2167: %The mean energy is obtained by adjusting a Gaussian to the reconstructed energy
2168: %distribution. This is done in two steps:
2169: %First, a Gaussian is adjusted in a relatively wide range around the mean reconstructed
2170: %energy. The standard deviation from this fit is used to determine the range for the final
2171: %adjustement of a Gaussian to the reconstructed energy distribution.
2172: %Two standard deviations for the low energy side and three standard deviations
2173: %for the high energy side are used. This is the maximal possible fit range
2174: %where the $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom is one. To determine the uncertainty
2175: %due to the choosen fit range, the range is restricted to $1.5$ and extended to $2$ standard
2176: %deviations.
2177: %
2178: The mean energy is obtained by fitting a Gaussian to the reconstructed energy
2179: distribution within
2180: two standard deviations for the low energy side and three standard deviations
2181: for the high energy side\footnote{This is the maximal possible fit range
2182: where the $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom is one.}. To determine the uncertainty
2183: due to the chosen fit range,
2184: results are also considered where
2185: the range of the low energy side
2186: is restricted to $1.5$ and extended to $2.5$ standard deviations.
2187:
2188: The mean reconstructed energy divided by the beam energy is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:elin}.
2189: The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainty as obtained by the fit procedure.
2190: Since the absolute calibration of the beam energy is not precisely known, all points
2191: are normalised to the value measured at $E = 100$\GeVx.
2192: The inner band represents the uncorrelated uncertainty on the knowledge of the beam energy,
2193: while the outer band shows in addition the correlated uncertainty added in quadrature
2194: (see section~\ref{sec:beam}).
2195: %
2196: For energies $E > 10$\GeVx, all measured points are within $\pm 0.1$\%.
2197: The point $E = 10$\GeV is lower by $0.7$\% with respect to the other measurements.
2198:
2199:
2200: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2201: \begin{figure}[th]
2202: \begin{center}
2203: \psfig{figure=figs/celin.ps,
2204: bbllx=30,bblly=40,bburx=700,bbury=730,angle=270,clip,
2205: width=14.cm}
2206: \end{center}
2207: \vspace{-2.5cm}
2208: \caption{
2209: Ratio of the reconstructed electron energy to the beam energy
2210: as a function of the beam energy. All points are normalised to the value measured at $E = 100$\GeVx.
2211: The inner band illustrates the uncorrelated uncertainty of the beam energy measurement;
2212: in the outer band the correlated
2213: uncertainty is added in quadrature to the inner band.
2214: \label{fig:elin}}
2215: \end{figure}
2216: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
2217:
2218:
2219:
2220: \subsection{Systematic Uncertainties on the Linearity Results}
2221: \label{sec:syslinresults}
2222: \noindent
2223: The systematic uncertainties induced by various effects on the reconstructed electron
2224: energy are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:syst}. In order to evaluate the size of some of
2225: the systematic uncertainties, dedicated Monte Carlo simulations have been produced
2226: to calculate new sets of calibration parameters. These samples were typically smaller
2227: than the default one.
2228:
2229:
2230: The uncertainty on the current to energy conversion factor (see section~\ref{sec:fieps})
2231: of the PS has been studied using the $\chi^2$-distribution of the visible
2232: energy distribution for data and Monte Carlo simulations for all energy points.
2233: The uncertainty is estimated by the scatter for different energies.
2234: The same procedure has been repeated by studying the dependence of the mean reconstructed energy
2235: on the PS energy in the data and in the Monte Carlo simulations.
2236: A consistent result has been found.
2237: Since the relative contribution for the PS is larger at low energies, the systematic
2238: uncertainty rises towards low energies (see Fig.~\ref{fig:syst}a).
2239: While the systematic uncertainty is negligible at $E = 180$\GeVx,
2240: it reaches about $0.1$\% at $E = 10$\GeVx.
2241:
2242: The uncertainty due to the relative normalisation difference between the first and the
2243: second compartments (see section~\ref{sec:fieps}) is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:syst}b.
2244: This effect biases the energy measurement by up to about $0.1$\%, mostly at low energies.
2245:
2246: The systematic uncertainty arising from the incomplete knowledge of the amount of \LAr
2247: between the PS and the \LAr excluder in front of it (see section~\ref{sec:g4})
2248: is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:syst}c. It introduces an uncertainty of about $0.05$\%.
2249: Again, low energies are most affected.
2250:
2251: Fig.~\ref{fig:syst}d shows the effect of adding ad hoc $0.02$~\Xzero additional material
2252: between the PS and the first compartment. The relative variation of the
2253: reconstructed beam electron energy is slowly decreasing from low to high energies
2254: The effect amounts to about $0.1$\% at low energies. At $E = 10$\GeV even $0.2\%$ is found.
2255:
2256: %Contrary to the case of the data taking of the finalised ATLAS experiment
2257: %where the protons are collided every $25$\nsx, in the test-beam
2258: %the electrons arrive at any time with respect to the $25$\ns clock used by the
2259: %data acquisition system. In this respect the energy reconstruction is more complicated
2260: %in the test-beam than it will be in ATLAS, since it depends on the event timing.
2261: %For instance, while in ATLAS only one set of optimal filtering coefficients
2262: %will be needed, in the test-beam $25$ different sets for each\ns are used
2263: %to reconstruct the energy. However, some of the time dependence of the energy
2264: %reconstruction is already introduced during the data taking.
2265: %The decision where the electronics switches from high to medium gain is based
2266: %on the signal measured in a fixed time sample. The electronics is adjusted such that
2267: %for most events the signal amplitude lies in the middle of this time
2268: %sample. However, when the electrons arrive a bit later or earlier the amplitude
2269: %is shifted left or right. This on-line procedure introduces therefore
2270: %a dependence of the reconstructed energy on the electron arrival time.
2271:
2272: As explained in section~\ref{sec:calib}, according to the amplitude of a predefined sample
2273: in the medium gain, a selection of the gain to be digitised is done. In the test-beam
2274: electrons arrive at any time with respect to the $25$\ns clock used by the
2275: data acquisition system. When this sample is not at the peak of the signal,
2276: it happens around the threshold that the cell is digitised in the high gain while it
2277: should have been done in the medium gain. The fraction of such events depends on the trigger phase with
2278: respect to the 40 MHz clock. Moreover, in the calibration procedure
2279: no continuity of the reconstructed amplitude near the overlap region of high
2280: and medium gain
2281: has been imposed. A combination of these two effects can induce a change of the
2282: reconstructed energy especially in the electron range from $40$ to $80$\GeVx. This effect was studied by selecting
2283: events sampled near the peak ($10 < t_{tdc} < 20 $\nsx) and outside this time window
2284: ($t_{tdc} < 10 $\ns or $t_{tdc} > 20 $\nsx).
2285: In ATLAS a timing adjustment will be performed such that the maximum sample is near the maximum
2286: of the signal, which corresponds to $15$\ns in the testbeam data taken
2287: in asynchronous mode.
2288: As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:syst}e, the largest effect is about $\pm 0.1 \%$ at $60$\GeVx.
2289: %In Fig.~\ref{fig:elintdc} the linearity performance for events sampled near the peak is presented.
2290:
2291:
2292: %In Fig.~\ref{fig:syst}d the uncertainty introduced by this effect is shown.
2293: %Shown %as closed circles%
2294: %are events where the
2295: %electron arrives within $10 < t_{tdc} < 20 $\nsx, i.e. in the middle of the
2296: %$25$\ns window %. The open circles show the uncertainty introduced by events arriving
2297: %and events arriving
2298: %at the edges, i.e. outside $10 < t_{tdc} < 20$\nsx.
2299: %In the region around $50$\GeV where the highest energetic cell switches gain
2300: %the uncertainty is largest. The maximal uncertainty is $0.1$\%.
2301:
2302:
2303: The uncertainty introduced by restricting or extending the fit range
2304: of the Gaussian to the reconstructed energy distribution (see section~\ref{sec:linresults})
2305: is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:syst}f. At low energies the uncertainty reaches $0.1$\%,
2306: above $E > 60$\GeV it is negligible.
2307:
2308: The bias introduced by the uncertainty of the "far" material
2309: and correspondingly of the Bremsstrahlung correction
2310: (see section~\ref{sec:brems}) is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:syst}g.
2311: The resulting uncertainty is about $0.05\%$ (up to $0.1\%$ at two energies).
2312:
2313:
2314: To test the influence of an incomplete description of the low energy
2315: tail laterally to the shower axis, the whole analysis is repeated using
2316: a $5{\rm x 5}$ instead of a $3{\rm x 3}$ cluster.
2317: The change with respect to the standard analysis
2318: is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:syst}h). The uncertainty is about $0.1\%$.
2319:
2320: Fig.~\ref{fig:syst}i) shows the effect of using different range cuts in the
2321: Monte Carlo simulation. The default value of $20${\rm $\mu$m} is decreased
2322: to $10${\rm $\mu$m} and increased to $100${\rm $\mu$m}.
2323: Although visible energy and sampling fraction significantly change in the Monte Carlo simulation,
2324: the linearity remains constant within about $0.05\%$ ($0.1\%$ in exceptional cases).
2325:
2326: In the default Monte Carlo the small deformation of the calorimeter cells
2327: in the gravitational field of the earth
2328: is modeled ("sagging").
2329: %The deviation to the case where this deformation is neglected
2330: %is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:syst}j).
2331: This effect introduces at most a change of $0.05\%$.
2332:
2333: In an electromagnetic shower hadronic interactions of mainly photons with
2334: nucleons can lead to deposited energy that can not be measured in the calorimeter
2335: (nuclear excitation etc.) or can produce particles that escape detection
2336: (neutron, neutrinos etc.). According to the Monte Carlo simulation
2337: on average about $0.4$\% of the energy can not be measured in the calorimeter.
2338: However, the energy dependence of this effect is small.
2339: While at high energies the relative variation of a Monte Carlo simulation
2340: with photon nucleon interactions switched off to the default case
2341: is constant, at low energies it is about $0.995-0.999$.
2342: This is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:syst}j).
2343:
2344:
2345: The correction for the modulation of the reconstructed energy on the
2346: $\phi$-impact position within a cell (needed to improve the energy resolution)
2347: does not change the mean reconstructed energy within $0.05\%$. % (see Fig.~\ref{fig:syst}l).
2348: %For smaller energies the correction introduces a small change of the mean reconstructed energy, for example
2349: %$0.1\%$ at $E=15\GeV$
2350: %This means that this correction has a small energy
2351: %dependence\footnote{Because of the limited statistics of the data sample
2352: %this correction has been derived at $E=100\GeVx$, where the largest data set
2353: %was available, and is applied to all energies.}.
2354:
2355:
2356: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2357: \begin{figure}[th]
2358: \begin{center}
2359: \psfig{figure=figs/syst.eps,
2360: %bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=560,bbury=630,angle=270,clip,
2361: width=14.cm}
2362: \end{center}
2363: \begin{picture}(0,0)
2364: %\put( 5,175){a)}
2365: %\put(75,175){b)}
2366: \put( 5,168){a)}
2367: \put(75,168){b)}
2368: \put( 5,128){c)}
2369: \put(75,128){d)}
2370: \put( 5, 88){e)}
2371: \put(75, 88){f)}
2372: \put( 5, 48){g)}
2373: \put(75, 48){h)}
2374: \put( 5, 5){i)}
2375: \put(75, 5){j)}
2376: \end{picture}
2377: \vspace{-0.5cm}
2378: \caption{Sensitivity to systematic effects on the electron energy measurements:
2379: a) the normalisation of the PS,
2380: b) the relative normalisation of the strips and the middle,
2381: c) the amount of \LAr in front of the PS,
2382: d) the amount of material between the PS and the strips
2383: e) the event arrival time with respect to the data acquisition clock,
2384: f) the range where the Gaussian fit is performed,
2385: g) the Bremsstrahlung correction (amount of "far" material),
2386: h) the lateral shower description,
2387: i) the dependence on the range cut used in the simulation
2388: % j) the deformation of the calorimeter cells due to the gravitational force
2389: j) the presence of photon nucleon reactions in the simulation,
2390: % l) the $\Phi$-impact point correction within a cell.
2391: Shown is the relative variation of the reconstructed to the beam electron energy.
2392: All points are normalised to the value measured at $E=100\GeVx$.
2393: The closed and open circles show the variations of the corresponding systematic uncertainties
2394: (see text) relative to the default.
2395: \label{fig:syst}}
2396: \end{figure}
2397: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2398:
2399:
2400: %The more energy they distribute, the more they deposit
2401: %their energy electromagnetically.
2402: %The electron energy measurements might be systematically reduced by a possible
2403: %pion contamination, since pions lead to an energy distribution
2404: %in the \LAr calorimeter which decreases towards the beam energy.
2405: To estimate how the reconstructed electron energy is biased
2406: by a possible pion contamination,
2407: the fraction of pions with a large energy deposit in the \LAr
2408: is determined from the Monte Carlo simulation
2409: (see section~\ref{sec:pion_contamination}) and the shift of the reconstructed
2410: mean electron energy in the Monte Carlo simulation is calculated.
2411: %
2412: %As an example the shape of the measured energy distribution
2413: %is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cpion2}.
2414: %In the region $40 < E_{rec} < 50$\GeV
2415: %$0.4\%$ of the events are pions. However, no shift of the mean reconstructed
2416: %electron energy is introduced. This would be only the case, if the
2417: %pion contamination was ten times larger.
2418: The shift is negligible at all energies.
2419: %
2420: %This is the case for pions with $E_{rec} > 7$\GeV (dashed line) as well as
2421: %for pions with $E_{rec} > 9.5$\GeV (dotted line).
2422: %Electrons at $E_{beam}=10$\GeV deposit about
2423: %the same amount energy in the first than they do in the second compartment.
2424: %The Monte Carlo simulation for electrons describes the data well. In particular,
2425: %the region where most of the pion contamination is expected is well described.
2426:
2427: %To further test the influence of a possible pion contamination in the data,
2428: In addition,
2429: data events with $E_1^{vis}/(E_2^{vis}+E_3^{vis}) > 0.1$ can be selected. Such a cut does not
2430: shift the reconstructed energy in the Monte Carlo simulation of electrons
2431: and does not change much the expected pion energy distribution.
2432: %This data sample is expected to have about half of the pions removed.
2433: The reconstructed energy in the restricted data sample, where about half of the pions
2434: are expected to be removed, does not change. % with respect to the full data sample.
2435: % one can conclude, that the effect of pion
2436: %contamination is negligible for the energy measurement.
2437:
2438:
2439: To ensure a precise measurement of the electron energy, the energy dependence
2440: of the calibration parameters has to be taken into account.
2441: Since the initial electron energy is not known a-priori, an iterative
2442: procedure has to be applied. Starting from the measurement in the accordion calorimeter
2443: and using an average calibration parameter for the accordion calorimeter
2444: (parameter $d$ in eq.~\ref{eq:Erec}), the energy is reconstructed.
2445: With this first energy estimate, the calibration corrections are evaluated.
2446: This procedure is evaluated until the reconstructed energy does not change
2447: significantly. Already after two iterations an accuracy of better than $10^{-5}$ is achieved.
2448:
2449:
2450:
2451:
2452: \subsection{Interpretation of the Linearity Results}
2453: \label{sec:interlinresults}
2454: \noindent
2455: To quantify the non-linearity of the measured data points for $E > 10 \GeVx$,
2456: a first order polynomial is fitted. The resulting slope ($a_1$) is compatible with zero.
2457: %%The result is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:elintdc} (solid line)
2458: %and is within the systematic uncertainty on the beam energy.
2459: %The slope $a_1 = (-4 \pm 9) \cdot 10^{-6} \; \GeVinvx$, is compatible with zero.
2460: %implying that lower energies are overestimated with respect to the higher energies.
2461: %
2462: %
2463: %
2464: %
2465: %When instead of a normal polynom a first order Legendre-polynoms are fitted,
2466: %the slope is $l_1 = -1.2 \pm 0.8 \cdot 10^{-4} \; \GeVinvx$. Since
2467: %he Legendre-polynoms are orthogonal, the slope stays approximately unchanged
2468: %when higher orders are fitted in addition.
2469: %
2470: When the analysis is repeated for each systematic uncertainty, slopes
2471: in the range $a_1 = \pm 5 \cdot 10^{-6} \GeVinv$ are obtained.
2472: All systematic uncertainties combined in quadrature give an uncertainty
2473: of $\pm 9 \cdot 10^{-6} \GeVinv$.
2474: %The systematic
2475: %uncertainty on the fit with the Legendre Polynoms is
2476: %$l_1 = - 4 \cdot 10^{-4} - 0.2 \cdot 10^{-4} \; \GeVinvx$. Therefore within the systematic
2477: %uncertainties no non-linearity is observed.
2478: %In conclusion, the overall non-linearity is smaller than $5 \cdot 10^{-4} \; \GeVinvx$.
2479: %
2480: Based on purely statistical uncertainties, the $\chi^2$ per degree of freedoms
2481: for a linear fits to the data points
2482: is $\chi^2/ndf = 2.7$. This, together with the fact that the pull
2483: distribution is not Gaussian (RMS is about 1.5), indicates that the measured data points
2484: are not fully compatible with a straight line and that systematic uncertainties
2485: affect the linearity.
2486:
2487:
2488: %When the measurement is restricted to events arriving
2489: %in the middle of the time interval with respect to the data acquisition clock,
2490: %the slope is also compatible with zero
2491: %(see open circles and dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:elintdc}), but
2492: %in this case the $\chi^2/ndf = 1$ and the pull distribution
2493: %is compatible with a Gaussian with a mean at zero and
2494: %a standard deviation of $1.3 \sigma$.
2495: %
2496: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2497: %\begin{figure}[th]
2498: %\begin{center}
2499: %\psfig{figure=figs/celintdc.ps,bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=580,bbury=830,angle=270,clip,width=14.5cm}
2500: %\end{center}
2501: %\vspace{-0.5cm}
2502: %\caption{
2503: %Ratio of the reconstructed electron energy to the beam energy
2504: %as a function of the beam energy. The closed circles indicate the results
2505: %of using the full data set, the open circles are obtained by restricting
2506: %the measurements to events with $10< t_{tdc} <20$ \nsx, for which
2507: %the electron arrives close to the data acquisition clock.
2508: %All points are normalised to the value measured at $E = 100$\GeVx.
2509: %A fit of a linear function to the data points displayed as
2510: %closed (open) circle is shown as solid (dashed) line.
2511: %The inner band illustrates the uncorrelated uncertainty of the beam energy measurement;
2512: %in the outer band the correlated
2513: %uncertainty is added in quadrature to the inner band.
2514: %\label{fig:elintdc}}
2515: %\end{figure}
2516: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
2517:
2518:
2519:
2520: In practical applications like the measurement of the $W^\pm$-boson mass,
2521: the shift of the measured (transverse) energy spectrum with respect to a
2522: reference reaction like that from the $Z^0$-boson needs to be understood.
2523: Since the transverse energy distribution is roughly peaked at half of the boson mass and
2524: slowly decreases towards lower transverse energies, one is
2525: interested in the control of the linearity within a few\GeVx.
2526: To estimate the size of local non-linearities
2527: for each energy measurement the local slope is calculated from the measurement
2528: which have a beam energy difference smaller than $20$\GeVx.
2529: %So, for the point at $E= 15 \GeV$ the sub-set consists of $\{15, 20, 25, 30, 35 \GeVx \}$
2530: %and for the point $E= 100 \GeV$ the sub-set consists of $\{80, 90, 100, 120 \GeVx \}$.
2531: %For each sub-set, the slope of a straight line is calculated.
2532: %The slope
2533: %is $8 \cdot 10^{-5} \; \GeVinv$ at $E= 15 \GeVx$, decreases slowly towards higher energies
2534: %and becomes $-2 \cdot 10^{-5} \; \GeVinv$ at $E= 70 \GeV$ and then increases to
2535: %$-1 \cdot 10^{-7} \; \GeVinv$ at $E= 120 \GeVx$.
2536: %
2537: %The local non-linearity is always smaller than $ 10^{-4} \; \GeVinvx$.
2538: %
2539: The result for the default measurement and for the systematic variations
2540: added in quadrature\footnote{Here, we only consider the systematics which are not related to the
2541: uncertainty of the test-beam geometry,
2542: i.e., normalisation of the presampler, the strips and the middle, the timing, the fit range, the lateral extension of the shower
2543: and using the different Monte Carlo simulations to extract the calibration constants.}
2544: at each energy point (where the slope can be calculated) is shown
2545: in Fig.~\ref{fig:localslopes}. In the region relevant for the measurement
2546: of the $\W^\pm$-mass %, i.e. around $40$\GeVx,
2547: the local slope is
2548: known to a level of about $\pm 4 \cdot 10^{-5}\GeVinvx$. This translates
2549: roughly to an uncertainty of $15$\MeV on the $\W^\pm$-mass.
2550:
2551: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2552: \begin{figure}[th]
2553: %\vspace{0.5cm}
2554: \begin{center}
2555: \psfig{figure=figs/localslope.eps,width=14.cm}
2556: \end{center}
2557: %\vspace{-0.3cm}
2558: \caption
2559: {Slope calculated for the energy measurements within $20$\GeV around a given
2560: electron energy. The point represent the default result, while
2561: the band illustrates the slopes obtained from the systematic variations.
2562: \label{fig:localslopes}}
2563: \end{figure}
2564: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
2565:
2566:
2567: \subsection{The Resolution Results}
2568: \label{sec:resresults}
2569: \noindent
2570: The energy resolution is obtained from the standard deviation of the Gaussian fit described
2571: in section~\ref{sec:linresults}.
2572: The relative resolution %, i.e. the standard deviation divided by the mean reconstructed energy,
2573: as a function of the electron beam energy
2574: is shown as closed circles in Fig.~\ref{fig:eres}.
2575: %Superimposed as line are the results from the Monte Carlo simulation.
2576: %The resolution in the data is slightly better than the resolution in the Monte Carlo simulation.
2577:
2578: Since the noise depends on the electronic gain of the cells, the noise
2579: is subtracted for each energy point to obtain
2580: the intrinsic resolution of the calorimeter.
2581: The noise is evaluated as described in section~\ref{sec:g4}.
2582: %The reduction thanks to the use of the optimal
2583: %filtering coefficients has been taken into account.
2584: The noise is about $250$\MeV and slightly increases towards higher energies.
2585: The noise contribution to the resolution is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:eres} as open squares.
2586: %
2587: The data where the noise contribution and in addition the beam spread has been subtracted
2588: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:eres} as open circles.
2589: A function of the following form is fitted:
2590: \begin{eqnarray}
2591: \frac{\sigma_E}{E} = \frac{a}{\sqrt{E}} \oplus b,
2592: \; {\rm with } \;
2593: a = 10.1 \pm 0.1 \% \cdot \sqrt{\GeV}
2594: \; {\rm and} \;
2595: b = 0.17 \pm 0.04 \%.
2596: \label{eq:resformula}
2597: \end{eqnarray}
2598: The symbol $\oplus$ indicates that the two terms are added in quadrature.
2599: %The term $a$ is the stochastic term due to the sampling fluctuations and $b$ is the
2600: %constant term reflecting local non-uniformities in the calorimeter.
2601: %
2602: The quoted errors are only statistical.
2603: The fit function is overlayed to the data points % as solid line.
2604: and gives a good description of the
2605: energy dependence in the data.
2606: %
2607: %Given the relatively large $\eta$ of the impinging electron,
2608: The result is compatible with previous test-beam results taken in this $\eta$ region \cite{modul0}.
2609:
2610:
2611:
2612:
2613: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2614: \begin{figure}[th]
2615: \begin{center}
2616: \psfig{figure=figs/cerms.ps,
2617: bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=560,bbury=630,angle=270,clip,
2618: width=14.5cm}
2619: \end{center}
2620: %\vspace{-0.5cm}
2621: \caption{Fractional energy resolution as a function of the beam energy.
2622: Shown are the data before (closed circles) and after (open circle)
2623: the gain dependent noise subtraction.
2624: Overlayed as a line is
2625: %the resolution in the Monte Carlo simulation and
2626: a parameterisation of the resolution based on eq.~\ref{eq:resformula} obtained from a fit.
2627: The open squares indicate the subtracted noise contribution.
2628: \label{fig:eres}}
2629: \end{figure}
2630: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%g
2631:
2632:
2633:
2634:
2635:
2636:
2637:
2638: \section*{Conclusions}
2639: \label{sec:conclusions}
2640: \noindent
2641: Electron energy measurements with a module of the ATLAS electromagnetic barrel \LAr calorimeter
2642: have been studied in the range from $10$ to $245$\GeV
2643: impinging at $\eta=0.687$
2644: at the CERN H8 test-beam upgraded for precision momentum measurement.
2645: %with an upgrading system measuring the electron beam energy.
2646: The beam energy has been monitored in the range $10< E < 180$\GeV
2647: with an accuracy of
2648: $3 \cdot 10^{-4}$ for the uncorrelated uncertainty and an uncertainty of
2649: $11$\MeV common to all energy points.
2650:
2651:
2652: A calibration scheme has been developed for electrons that provides a good linearity
2653: and a good resolution at the same time.
2654: %
2655: The mean reconstructed energy, the energy distributions, as well as the longitudinal
2656: and lateral energy profiles, are well described by the Monte Carlo simulation.
2657: %
2658: Based on this simulation the data have been corrected for various effects
2659: involving
2660: the intrinsic non-linearities due to the varying sampling fraction,
2661: energy losses due to upstream and downstream interactions, energy depositions
2662: outside the electron cluster, and losses due to Bremsstrahlung at the
2663: beginning of the beam line.
2664:
2665: In the energy range $15 \le E \le 180$\GeVx, the reconstructed energy response is linear
2666: within $\pm 0.1$\%. The point at $E = 10$\GeV
2667: is about $0.7\%$ lower than the other beam energies.
2668: At $E = 245$\GeV no precise beam energy measurement was available.
2669:
2670:
2671: The systematic uncertainties due to the limited knowledge of the
2672: test-beam or detector set-up or due to reconstruction effects is
2673: generally larger at low energies (up to about $\pm 0.1$\%),
2674: but negligible at high energies.
2675: The non-linearity observed in the energy range of $40$\GeV and higher matches,
2676: if extendable to the whole calorimeter, the requirements for the
2677: $W^\pm$-mass measurement aiming for a precision of $15$\MeVx.
2678:
2679: The sampling term of the energy resolution is found to be $10 \% \cdot \sqrt{\GeV}$, the
2680: local constant term is $0.17$\%.
2681:
2682:
2683:
2684: \section*{Acknowledgements}
2685: We would like to thank D. Cornuet, J. Dutour from the CERN AT/ME department
2686: and Y. Gaillard and J.P. Brunet from the CERN AB/PO department for valuable
2687: help on setting up the beam.
2688: We thank our NIKHEF ATLAS colleagues A.~Linde for kindly supplying the Hall probes used for the precise
2689: beam energy determination and H.~Boterenbrood for help with the read-out.
2690: %
2691: We are indebted to our technicians and engineers for their
2692: contribution to the construction
2693: and running of the calorimeter modules and the electronics.
2694: %
2695: We would like to thank the accelerator division for the good working
2696: conditions in the H8 beam-line.
2697: Those of us from non-member states
2698: wish to thank CERN for its hospitality.
2699: %
2700: \bibliography{nim}
2701: \end{document}
2702:
2703:
2704: