Hit Rates in Pixel 2017 Data / MC comparison · • Data: zero-bias run 338846, processed in...
13
Hit Rates in Pixel 2017 Data / MC comparison 1
Transcript of Hit Rates in Pixel 2017 Data / MC comparison · • Data: zero-bias run 338846, processed in...
Hit Rates in Pixel 2017 Data / MC comparison
1
Motivation• From ITk Pixel TDR:
2
Data and MC• Data: zero-bias run 338846, processed in DAOD_IDTRKVALID with ALL pixel hits (default is only those attached to tracks)
• https://its.cern.ch/jira/browse/DATREP-104
• available here: /global/projecta/projectdirs/atlas/ljeanty/data/pixel/ZeroBiasData/data17_13TeV.00338846.physics_ZeroBias.recon.DAOD_IDTRKVALID.r10300/
• mu ranges from 60 - 20 in this run, good ID data quality
• MC: Neutralino + pileup sample with mu from 0 to 100, in mc16 conditions:
• available here: /global/projecta/projectdirs/atlas/ljeanty/data/pixel/ZeroBiasMC/user.ljeanty.200218_159000.ParticleGenerator_nu_E50_InDetDxAOD_MC.pool.root_EXT0/
3
How comparable are the pixel settings in MC16 and 2017 data?
• useful twiki: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/Atlas/PixelConditionsRUN2#MC16a_c_d
4
What about “dead” (“disabled”) modules?
5
12 modules = 5% of B-layer modules30 modules = 5.5% of L1 modules36 modules = 5% of L2 modules
So, have to scale up data in your head by 5% for
old Pixel layers
IBL should be fair comparison, 1%
difference
Hits / event versus mu• Note: all plots are barrel only
• Error bars are not shown, but checked that stat. uncertainty =< +/- 1%
6
mu0 20 40 60 80 100
hits
/eve
nts
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
Layer 0 DataLayer 0 MCLayer 1 DataLayer 1 MCLayer 2 DataLayer 2 MCLayer 3 DataLayer 3 MC
mu0 20 40 60 80 100
Dat
a/M
C
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
mu0 20 40 60 80 100
clus
ters
siz
e 1
/ eve
nts
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Layer 0 DataLayer 0 MCLayer 1 DataLayer 1 MCLayer 2 DataLayer 2 MCLayer 3 DataLayer 3 MC
mu0 20 40 60 80 100
Dat
a/M
C
1
2
3 mu0 20 40 60 80 100
clus
ters
siz
e 2+
/ ev
ents
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000Layer 0 DataLayer 0 MCLayer 1 DataLayer 1 MCLayer 2 DataLayer 2 MCLayer 3 DataLayer 3 MC
mu0 20 40 60 80 100
Dat
a/M
C
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
Clusters per event per mu
7
Clusters per event v. cluster size
8
clusterSize0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
clus
ters
/eve
nt in
beg
inni
ng o
f run
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Layer 0 DataLayer 0 MCLayer 1 DataLayer 1 MC
clusterSize0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Dat
a/M
C
0
0.5
1
1.5
clusterSize0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
clus
ters
/eve
nt in
end
of r
un
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Layer 0 DataLayer 0 MCLayer 1 DataLayer 1 MC
clusterSize0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Dat
a/M
C
0
1
2
3clusterSize0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
clus
ters
/eve
nt in
mid
dle
of ru
n
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Layer 0 DataLayer 0 MCLayer 1 DataLayer 1 MC
clusterSize0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Dat
a/M
C
0
0.5
1
1.5
beginning of run middle of run end of run
Clusters per event per mu versus eta
9
eta Module10− 8− 6− 4− 2− 0 2 4 6 8 10
clus
ters
siz
e 1
/eve
nt/m
u
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Layer 0 DataLayer 0 MCLayer 1 DataLayer 1 MCLayer 2 DataLayer 2 MCLayer 3 DataLayer 3 MC
eta Module10− 8− 6− 4− 2− 0 2 4 6 8 10
Dat
a/M
C
1
2
3
4
eta Module10− 8− 6− 4− 2− 0 2 4 6 8 10
clus
ters
siz
e 2+
/eve
nt/m
u
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Layer 0 DataLayer 0 MCLayer 1 DataLayer 1 MCLayer 2 DataLayer 2 MCLayer 3 DataLayer 3 MC
eta Module10− 8− 6− 4− 2− 0 2 4 6 8 10
Dat
a/M
C
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
Clusters per event per mu versus phi
10
phi Module0 10 20 30 40 50
clus
ters
siz
e 1
/eve
nt/m
u
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Layer 0 DataLayer 0 MCLayer 1 DataLayer 1 MCLayer 2 DataLayer 2 MCLayer 3 DataLayer 3 MC
phi Module0 10 20 30 40 50
Dat
a/M
C
0
1
2
3phi Module
0 10 20 30 40 50
clus
ters
siz
e 2+
/eve
nt/m
u
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Layer 0 DataLayer 0 MCLayer 1 DataLayer 1 MCLayer 2 DataLayer 2 MCLayer 3 DataLayer 3 MC
phi Module0 10 20 30 40 50
Dat
a/M
C
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
Clusters 2+ per event per mu versus ToT
11
ToT0 50 100 150 200 250
clus
ters
siz
e 2+
/eve
nt/m
u
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
Layer 0 DataLayer 0 MCLayer 1 DataLayer 1 MCLayer 2 DataLayer 2 MCLayer 3 DataLayer 3 MC
ToT0 50 100 150 200 250
Dat
a/M
C
0
1
2
3
ToT0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
clus
ters
siz
e 2+
/eve
nt/m
u
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2 Layer 0 DataLayer 0 MCLayer 1 DataLayer 1 MCLayer 2 DataLayer 2 MCLayer 3 DataLayer 3 MC
ToT0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Dat
a/M
C
0
10
20
Clusters 1 per event per mu versus ToT
12
ToT0 50 100 150 200 250
clus
ters
siz
e 1
/eve
nt/m
u
3−10
2−10
1−10
1
Layer 0 DataLayer 0 MCLayer 1 DataLayer 1 MCLayer 2 DataLayer 2 MCLayer 3 DataLayer 3 MC
ToT0 50 100 150 200 250
Dat
a/M
C
0
1
2
3
4
5
ToT0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
clus
ters
siz
e 1
/eve
nt/m
u
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Layer 0 DataLayer 0 MCLayer 1 DataLayer 1 MCLayer 2 DataLayer 2 MCLayer 3 DataLayer 3 MC
ToT0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Dat
a/M
C
0
1
2
3
4
5
Conclusion• Clusters size 1:
• About 40% more clusters with size 1 in IBL in data v. MC
• 30% in B-layer, good agreement (+/- 5%) in other layers
• With lower threshold, the discrepancy data/MC could increase
• Clusters of size 2 and larger:
• ~8% more in IBL data v. MC
• good agreement (+/- 5%) in other layers
13
