Preliminary gains of PostShower from MIP's
(found with with 00xx00 in SMD and Tower=MIP)

  • Input: ~1.6M minB pp events from 2004 run. Only data from sector 5 are analyzed below.
  • 8 '0' before and after 'x' in the SMD pattern.
  • MIP response from towers: ADC-ped in [0.5,1.5]*predicted_MIP_response
  • Pres-1 and Pres-2 : ADC>ped+3*sigPed
  • no conditions on PostShower

  • Conclusions:
    * MPV is the same for inclusive spectra and the MIP gate once. One could argue the 20 cm of Pb is think enough to stop anything except MIP (for minB triggered events)
    * however the average MPV over 60 postshowers is at ~10 ch, whereas for pres1, pres2 it was rather 15 ch. The HV were chosen in the same way for pres1/2/post, right? It make not much sense to me (Jan)
    * even with our MIP selecting constrains there is a big chance MIP does not make to postshower in many cases, so the average signal is lower (Murad)


    Fig 1.Example of one postshower tile response (05RD02). Inclusive spectrum on the top, MIP gated one on the bottom. Gaussian shape was fitted to pedestal (blue), Landau to the spectrum above pedestal (red). Simultaneous fit is in green.

    60 plots for every tile of PostShower in etaBin=1, etaBin=2, etaBin=3, etaBin=4, etaBin=5, etaBin=6, etaBin=7, etaBin=8, etaBin=9, etaBin=10, etaBin=11, etaBin=12,


    Fig 2. Summary of results for the whole sector 5 (~60 tiles).
    Top left : MPV of Landau. Most of MPV is within 10 +/-6 ADC channels.
    Top right: relative error of MPV - precision of gains with 1.6 M eve would be of 14%
    Bottom left: ratio of width of Landau peak to its MPV.
    Bottom right correlation between MPV from the inclusive spec vs. from the one gated with MIP is visible.

    Sum over all subsectors for each η Bin