Overall Detector Performance Working Group Convenors: Pascal Gay, Markus Schumacher, Mark Thomson...
-
Upload
edward-gray -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Overall Detector Performance Working Group Convenors: Pascal Gay, Markus Schumacher, Mark Thomson...
Overall Detector Performance
Working Group
Convenors: Pascal Gay,
Markus Schumacher , Mark Thomson
• Charge of the WG
• Strategy
• How to do ?
• Who does what ?
• Open Questions
• Towards Amsterdam
Prague, 17.11. 02
Markus Schumacher , Bonn Overall Detektor Performance Working Group2
Charge of the Working Group
Evaluation of the detector performance considering the whole detector
Comparison of different sub-detector design/technology options in the context of the detector as a single entity
Provide a forum for discussion on all issues related to the overall detector performance with participation from detector R&D, simulation and physics groups (including our colleagues from the North American and Asian LC-Workshops)
Markus Schumacher , Bonn Overall Detektor Performance Working Group3
Strategy Obtain key performance figures
Perform reconstruction of physics events using information from all subdetectors with full simulation
Study influence of machine backgrounds (occupancy), overlaping events, time structure of accelerator, (mis)allignment and calibration issues, issue of crossing angle of the colliding beams
Develop ID/reco. tools and compare them using well defined benchmark processes
Extract parametrisations for / transfer algorithms to fast simulation packages (e.g. done for flavor tagging)
Perform comparison of physics results between full and fast simulation different detector technology & reco. algorithm options
Provide inputs to the discussion of cost/performance issues
Markus Schumacher , Bonn Overall Detektor Performance Working Group4
How to do it ?
common simulation framework for a fair comprison agree on language and one (maybe) new package (so far: Fortran/C++, BRAHMS/MOKKA, GEANT3/4)
provide a common data format for easy use in physics studies
define and agree on benchmark processes for comparsion (eeWW,ZZ,ttH for jet reco., jet separation, E resolution) (eeWW qqlnu for low angle tracking, flavor charge ID)
Identify key analysis tools to be developed ( reconstruction algorithms, ID tools, accelerator + alignment issues)
Identify key performance numbers to be determined ( E, p, d0 resolutions, reco and tagging eff., fake rates ... )
More detailed and complete list of benchmark processes, tools and key performance numbers on working group web page
Markus Schumacher , Bonn Overall Detektor Performance Working Group5
Who does what ?
detector groups provide inputs about technology options, detector design (granularity, material budget, readout time), very basic performance figures (point/energy/cluster resolutions, dependence on number of cells etc.), noise, ocupancy ....
simulation/software groups implement or ensure implementation of above in simulation, provide common simulation framework and data format
detector groups and simulation/software groups develop and implement basic reconstruction algorithms ( providing tracks, clusters )
overall detector performance group and simulation/software groups provide/ensure existence of analysis tools ( e.g. event reconstruction, ID packages )
overall detector performance group define performance criteria collect result from various groups and distribute those information
overall detector performance group and all (including physics groups) evaluate the performance figures / compare options
Markus Schumacher , Bonn Overall Detektor Performance Working Group6
Analysis tools/topics and Performance Criteria
Tools and Topics
PID + reconstruction for :
e,V0,h0,conversions, ....
quark flavor and charge tag
dE/dx id algorithms
implementation of overlapping events, alignment + calibration, several bunch
crossings, beam crossing angle
Performance Criteria
define physics processes to be studied as benchmarks
specify figures to compare: (e.g.) reco./id/selection effiencies
rejection factors / fake rates resolutions: E, ij ,
Mmiss, ...
compare those figures for 1) different event
topologies 2) technology + reco. options 3) background levels, allignment
and calibration accuracies
Markus Schumacher , Bonn Overall Detektor Performance Working Group7
Some Open Questions and Topics
influence of machine backgrounds due to and time structure of accelerator (vs. readout time) (e.g. assignment of tracks to bunch crossings)
issue of (mis)alignment, calibration, dead channels
hermeticity, forward veto vs. machine backgrounds
influence of non vanishing crossing angle
new and/or more sophisticated analysis tools: (e.g. quark charge tagging, b (c) vs. bbar (cbar) sophisticated implementation of dE/dx for particle ID)
( no complete list, examples from personal preference)
Markus Schumacher , Bonn Overall Detektor Performance Working Group8
Towards Amsterdam
Today: get overview of detector technologies, their implementation and status of simulation and availability and sophistication of ID/analysis tools
Today + Next Weeks: 1) find volunteers for all the open topics 2) decide on and provide common simulation framework and data format
Until Amsterdam: 1) establish common framework and data format 2) write documentation and provide it to all users 3) exchange information between working groups 4) do first studies for evaluation of performance
Amsterdam: plenty of reports on new and interesting results