Comparison of MPV of MIP for individual strips vs. gains from inverted slopes
(a.k.a. gains from integrals)

  • Input: ~1.7M minB pp events from 2004 run. Only data from sector 5 are analyzed below.
  • 8 '0' before and after 'x' (or 'xx') in the SMD pattern.
  • used SMD ADC-ped>3chan
  • MIP response from towers: ADC-ped in [0.4,2.5]*predicted_MIP_response
  • Pres-1, Pres-2, and PostShower : ADC>ped+3*sigPed

  • Conclusions:
    * both method yield correlated gains * integrals have better statistical accuracy * MIPs set absolute scale * As final SMD gains use integrals but renormalized sing average strip dependence from MIP.

    Plots below are for U-plane sector 5

    Fig 1U.
    Example of Landau fit (red) to individual SMD strips. Spectra (blue) were rebined depending on the integral for ADC[5,120] (sum ). Formula: int reb=16-sum/20, sum varied from 20-200. Numerical values are given in this ASCII table. All plots have x-axis range ADC[-5,120]. (PS)

    Fig 2U.
    Correlation between MPV from Landau vs. strip gains calculated from integrals from pp200 data . I did not care if Landau fit did not work for some strips - the general trend is well visible. X-axis MPV, Y-axis gains from integrals (PS)

    Fig 3U.
    Ration of MPV from Landau to gains from integrals vs. strip ID. Small strip dependence (~20-30%) is visible. (PS)

    Plots below are for V-plane sector 5

    Fig 4V. Numerical values are given in this ASCII table. (PS)

    Fig 5V. (PS)

    Fig 6V. (PS)