ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS
Introduction
This page lists the public plots produced within the Tile Calorimeter calibration group. The results obtained using the Charge Injection System are presented. All the plots are taken from https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration#Charge_injection_system_CISApproved Tile Calorimeter Charge Injection System (CIS) Calibration Plots
2022 Data These graphs show the detector-wide CIS calibration constant averages of all the high-gain (HG) and low-gain (LG) ADCs for each CIS calibration run from 1 July to 1 December, 2022, plotted as black circles. The CIS constants from a single channel (LBC25, Channel 40) are additionally plotted as blue triangles for comparison. The RMS values on the plots are indicative of the fluctuation present in calibrations. In addition, there is a 0.7 % systematic uncertainty derived from the electronics’ specifications present in individual calibrations, represented by the yellow error band. Neither problematic channels nor the demonstrator (LBA14) is included when calculating the mean. Only previously validated runs are used. Contact: Peter.Thomas.Camporeale@cern.ch and Mengyang.Li@cern.ch Date: 3 March 2023 Reference: ATLAS TileCal Performance Meeting (3/3/2023)  |
 [png]  [png] |
|
2022 Data These graphs show the detector-wide CIS calibration constant averages of all the high-gain (HG) and low-gain (LG) ADCs for each CIS calibration run from 1 July to 1 December, 2022, plotted as black circles. The CIS constants from a single channel (LBC25, Channel 40) are additionally plotted as blue triangles for comparison. The RMS values on the plots are indicative of the fluctuation present in calibrations. In addition, there is a 0.7 % systematic uncertainty derived from the electronics’ specifications present in individual calibrations, represented by the yellow error band. Neither problematic channels nor the demonstrator (LBA14) is included when calculating the mean. Only previously validated runs are used. Contact: Peter.Thomas.Camporeale@cern.ch and Mengyang.Li@cern.ch Date: 3 March 2023 Reference: ATLAS TileCal Performance Meeting (3/3/2023) |
 [png]  [png] |
|
2022 Data Percent change in detector-wide CIS constants between July to November, 2022, the first part of Run 3 data taking, excluding the demonstrator module (LBA14) for both high-gain (HG) and low-gain (LG) in the detector for the time period between 1 July and 1 December, 2022 using validated calibration runs.The RMS variation is approximately 0.06%. Channels that are unresponsive or have fluctuating CIS constants are not included. Additionally, variation of CIS constants in the demonstrator module (LBA14) are excluded. Contact: Peter.Thomas.Camporeale@cern.ch and Mengyang.Li@cern.ch Date: 3 March 2023 Reference: ATLAS TileCal Performance Meeting (3/3/2023) |
 [png] |
|
2022 Data This histogram shows the ratio of CIS constant RMS to mean for all channels excluding the demonstrator module (LBA14) for both high-gain (HG) and low-gain (LG) in the detector for the time period between 1 July and 1 December, 2022 using validated calibration runs. Channels that are unresponsive or fail certain quality flags are not included. Contact: Peter.Thomas.Camporeale@cern.ch and Mengyang.Li@cern.ch Date: 3 March 2023 Reference: ATLAS TileCal Performance Meeting (3/3/2023) |
 [png]  [png] |
|
2018 Data These three plots show the Charge Injection System (CIS) calibration constants (ADC counts / pC) for all the high gain (HG) and low gain (LG) channels in the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter LBA modules for a single run 367000 taken in November 2018. They have been created by 'PlotCalibFromCool.py' script reading CIS constants back from 'TileOfl02CalibCisLin-RUN2-UPD14-18' tag of COOLOFL_TILE Database. The third plot shows the same LG CIS constants as the second plot, but with the modified scale of Z-axis for CIS constant value. Contact: Iouri.Smirnov@cern.ch Date: 29, October 2019 |
 [png]  [png]  [png] |
|
2018 Data These histograms show the distribution of the Charge Injection System (CIS) calibration constants for a single run taken on 4th November 2018 for all the low-gain (LG) and high-gain (HG) channels in the entire detector. Typical variation is approximately 1.6% for such channels. In addition, the systematic uncertainty is 0.7% for the calibration constants of individuals channels. Channels that are unresponsive or have fluctuating CIS constants are not included. Contact: kachapma@cern.ch and ancsmith@cern.ch Date: 28, January 2019 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance Meeting (28/1/2019) |
 [png] [png] |
|
Winter 2017 Data Distribution of the average low gain (below) and high gain (above) CIS constants for a standard CIS calibration run taken on November 12th, 2017. The distribution is approximately normal with an RMS/mean ratio in both gains of 1.6%. Original plot format below. Contact: ancsmith@cern.ch and kachapma@cern.ch Date: 28, June 2019 Reference: Atlas TileCal Week (June 2019) |
 [png]  [png] |
|
Winter 2017 Data These histograms show the distribution of the Charge Injection System (CIS) calibration constants for a single run taken on 12 November 2017 for all the high gain and low gain channels in the entire detector. Typical variation is approximately 1.6% for such channels. In addition, the systematic uncertainty is 0.7% for the calibration constants of individuals channels. Channels that are unresponsive or have fluctuating CIS constants are not included. Contact: hazal.goksu@cern.ch and ryan.bouabid@cern.ch Date: 20, December 2017 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance Meeting (12/18/2017) |
 [png]  [png] |
|
2016 Data Distribution of the average low gain (below) and high gain (above) CIS constants for a standard CIS calibration run taken on October 2nd, 2016. The distribution is approximately normal with an RMS/mean ratio in both gains of 1.6%. Original plot format below. Contact: ancsmith@cern.ch and kachapma@cern.ch Date: 28, June 2019 Reference: Atlas TileCal Week (June 2019) |
 [png]  [png] |
|
Winter 2016 Data These histograms show the distribution of the Charge Injection System (CIS) calibration constants for a single run taken on 2 October 2016 for all the high gain and low gain channels in the entire detector. Typical variation is approximately 1.6% for such channels. In addition, the systematic uncertainty is 0.7% for the calibration constants of individuals channels. Channels that are unresponsive or have fluctuating CIS constants are not included, accounting for approximately 1% of the 19704 TileCal channels. Contact: michael.george.reid@cern.ch and hlazar@cern.ch Date: 12, December 2016 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance Meeting (12/12/2016) |
 [png]  [png] |
|
2015 Data Distribution of the average low gain (below) and high gain (above) CIS constants for a standard CIS calibration run taken August 21st and October 21st of 2015. The distribution is approximately normal with an RMS/mean ratio in both gains of 1.6%. Original plot format below. Contact: ancsmith@cern.ch and kachapma@cern.ch Date: 28, June 2019 Reference: Atlas TileCal Week (June 2019) |
 [png]  [png] |
|
Fall 2015 Data These histograms show the distribution of Charge Injection System (CIS) calibration constants over the time period between 21 Aug ’15 to 21 Oct ’15 for all the high-gain (first plot) and low-gain (second plot) channels in the entire detector. Typical variation is approximately 1.6% for such channels. In addition, the systematic uncertainty is 0.7% for the calibration constants of individual channels. Channels that are unresponsive or have fluctuating CIS constants are not included, accounting for approximately 1% of the 19704 TileCal channels. Contact: andrew.mattillion@cern.ch and shannon.towey@cern.ch Date: 03, November 2015 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance Meeting (02/11/2015) |
 [png]  [png] |
|
Fall 2014 Data These histograms show the distribution of Charge Injection System (CIS) calibration constants over the time period between 01 Oct ’14 to 04 Dec’14 for all the high-gain (first plot) and low-gain (second plot) channels in the entire detector. Typical variation is approximately 1.5% for such channels. In addition, the systematic uncertainty is 0.7% for the calibration constants of individual channels. Channels that are unresponsive or have fluctuating CIS constants are not included, accounting for approximately 1% of the 19704 TileCal channels. Contact: vikram.upadhyay@cern.ch and grey.williams.wilburn@cern.ch Date: 03, March 2015 Reference: CDS upload |
 [png]  [png] |
|
2014 Data These histograms show the distribution of Charge Injection System (CIS) calibration constants over the time period between 15 Aug’14 to 14 Sep’14 for all the high gain channels (first plot) and all the low gain channels (second plot) in the entire detector. We expect this to be narrow. It shows that the constants are stable. Because of selection of only good channels with stable CIS constants, the number of entries does not equal 9852, the number of connected high-gain channels. Contact: vikram.upadhyay@cern.ch and grey.williams.wilburn@cern.ch Date: 17, October 2014 Reference: CDS upload |
 [png]  [png] |
|
2012 Data Distribution of individual high-gain (first plot) and low-gain (second plot) readout calibrations for 2012, prior to the application of the measured values. The calibration constants are measured in-situ with the charge injection system (CIS). Typical variation is approximately 1.5% for both gains. After applying the measured values, the residual systematic uncertainty is +/-0.7% for the calibration constants of individual channels. Contact: noah.david.wasserman@cern.ch and nicholas.dulchinos@cern.ch Date: February 2013 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance Meeting (31/01/2013) |
 [png]  [png] |
|
June 2011 Data Channel-to-channel variation of the high-gain (first plot) and low-gain (second plot) readout calibration constants for June 2011 calibration data. The calibration constants are measured in-situ with the charge injection system (CIS). Typical variation is approximately 1.5%. Contact: brendan.haas@cern.ch and joshua.montgomery@cern.ch Date: September 2011 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance Meeting (05/09/2011) |
 [png]  [png] |
|
February 2011 Data Channel-to-channel variation of the high-gain (first plot) and low-gain (second plot) readout calibration constants prior to any correction, for February 2011 calibration data. The calibrations are measured in-situ with the charge injection system (CIS). Typical variation is approximately 1.5%. Contact: ahard@uchicago.edu and jdougherty@uchicago.edu Date: February 2011 Reference: Approval Slides Equivalent 2009 plots: TileCal Readiness Paper
|
 [png]  [png] |
|
Run 2 Data Detector-wide CIS calibration constant averages of all the high-gain (above) and low-gain (below) ADCs for a selection of CIS calibration runs spanning Run 2, plotted as black circles. The CIS constants from a typical channel (LBC20, Channel 35 for HG; LBC20, Channel 33 for LG) are additionally plotted as blue triangles for comparison. The RMS values on the plots are indicative of the fluctuation present in calibrations. In addition, there is a 0.7% systematic uncertainty present in individual calibrations, represented by the yellow error band. This uncertainty comes from the observed peak output amplitudes and is taken as characteristic of the channel-to-channel variation from this source, prior to any calibration. Problematic channels are not included when calculating the mean. Contact: ancsmith@cern.ch and kachapma@cern.ch Date: 28, June 2019 Reference: Atlas TileCal Week (June 2019) |
 [png]  [png] |
|
2018 Data These graphs show the detector-wide CIS calibration constant averages of all the high-gain (HG) and low-gain (LG) ADCs for each CIS calibration run from 5 April 2018 to 28 November 2018, plotted as black circles. The CIS constants from a typical channel (LBC20, Channel 35 for HG; LBC20, Channel 33 for LG) are additionally plotted as blue triangles for comparison. The RMS values on the plots are indicative of the fluctuation present in calibrations. In addition, there is a 0.7 % systematic uncertainty present in individual calibrations, represented by the yellow error band. Problematic channels are not included when calculating the mean. Contact: kachapma@cern.ch and ancsmith@cern.ch Date: 28, January 2019 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance Meeting (28/1/2019) |
 [png]  [png] |
|
2017 Data Detector-wide CIS calibration constant averages of all the high-gain (above) and low-gain (below) ADCs for a selection of CIS calibration runs between May 2017-November 2017, plotted as black circles. The CIS constants from a typical channel (LBC20, Channel 35 for HG; LBC20, Channel 33 for LG) are additionally plotted as blue triangles for comparison. The RMS values on the plots are indicative of the fluctuation present in calibrations. In addition, there is a 0.7% systematic uncertainty present in individual calibrations, represented by the yellow error band. This uncertainty comes from the observed peak output amplitudes and is taken as characteristic of the channel-to-channel variation from this source, prior to any calibration. Problematic channels are not included when calculating the mean. Original Plot format shown below. Contact: ancsmith@cern.ch and kachapma@cern.ch Date: 28, June 2019 Reference: Atlas TileCal Week (June 2019) |
 [png]  [png] |
|
Winter 2017 Data These graphs show the detector-wide CIS calibration constant averages of all the high-gain ADC’s for each CIS calibration run from 15 May 2017 to 05 December 2017, plotted as black circles. The CIS constants from a typical channel (LBC19, Channel 13) are additionally plotted as blue triangles for comparison. The RMS values on the plot are indicative of the fluctuation present in calibrations. In addition, there is a 0.7 % systematic uncertainty present in individual calibrations, represented by the blue error bars. Problematic channels are not included when calculating the mean. Contact: hazal.goksu@cern.ch and ryan.bouabid@cern.ch Date: 20, December 2017 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance Meeting (12/18/2017) |
 [png]  [png] |
|
2016 Data Detector-wide CIS calibration constant averages of all the high-gain (above) and low-gain (below) ADCs for a selection of CIS calibration runs between April 2016-November 2016, plotted as black circles. The CIS constants from a typical channel (LBC20, Channel 35 for HG; LBC20, Channel 33 for LG) are additionally plotted as blue triangles for comparison. The RMS values on the plots are indicative of the fluctuation present in calibrations. In addition, there is a 0.7% systematic uncertainty present in individual calibrations, represented by the yellow error band. This uncertainty comes from the observed peak output amplitudes and is taken as characteristic of the channel-to-channel variation from this source, prior to any calibration. Problematic channels are not included when calculating the mean. Original Plot format shown below. Contact: ancsmith@cern.ch and kachapma@cern.ch Date: 28, June 2019 Reference: Atlas TileCal Week (June 2019) |
 [png]  [png] |
|
Winter 2016 Data These graphs show the detector-wide CIS calibration constant averages of all the highgain and lowgain channels for each CIS calibration run from 20 April 2016 to 28 November 2016, plotted as black circles. Channels that are unresponsive or have fluctuating CIS constants are not included in the average. The CIS constants from a typical channel (LBC19, channel 13) are additionally plotted as blue triangles for comparison. The RMS values on the plot are indicative of the fluctuation present in calibrations. In addition, there is a 0.7% systematic uncertainty present in individual calibrations, represented by the blue error bars. Contact: michael.george.reid@cern.ch and hlazar@cern.ch Date: 12, December 2016 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance Meeting (12/12/2016) |
 [png]  [png] |
|
2015 Data Detector-wide CIS calibration constant averages of all the high-gain (above) and low-gain (below) ADCs for a selection of CIS calibration runs between August 2015-October 2015, plotted as black circles. The CIS constants from a typical channel (LBC20, Channel 35 for HG; LBC20, Channel 33 for LG) are additionally plotted as blue triangles for comparison. The RMS values on the plots are indicative of the fluctuation present in calibrations. In addition, there is a 0.7% systematic uncertainty present in individual calibrations, represented by the yellow error band. This uncertainty comes from the observed peak output amplitudes and is taken as characteristic of the channel-to-channel variation from this source, prior to any calibration. Problematic channels are not included when calculating the mean. Original Plot format shown below. Contact: ancsmith@cern.ch and kachapma@cern.ch Date: 28, June 2019 Reference: Atlas TileCal Week (June 2019) |
 [png]  [png] |
|
Fall 2015 Data These graphs show the detector-wide CIS calibration constant averages of all the high-gain (first plot) and low-gain (second plot) channels for each CIS calibration run from 21 Aug ’15 to 21 Oct ’15, plotted as black circles. Channels that are unresponsive or have fluctuating CIS constants are not included in the average, accounting for approximately 1% of the 19704 channels in the detector. The CIS constants from a typical channel (LBC19, Channel 13) are additionally plotted as blue triangles for comparison. The RMS values on the plot are indicative of the fluctuation present in calibrations. In addition, there is a 0.7% systematic uncertainty present in individual calibrations, represented by the blue error bars. Contact: andrew.mattillion@cern.ch and shannon.towey@cern.ch Date: 03, November 2015 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance Meeting (02/11/2015) |
 [png]  [png] |
|
Fall 2014 Data These graphs show the detector-wide CIS calibration constant averages of all the high-gain (first plot) and low-gain (second plot) channels for each CIS calibration run from 01 Oct’14 to 04 Dec’14, plotted as black circles. Channels that are unresponsive or have fluctuating CIS constants are not included in the average, accounting for approximately 1% of the 19704 channels in the detector. The CIS constants from a typical channel (LBC19, Channel 13) are additionally plotted as blue triangles for comparison. The RMS values on the plot are indicative of the fluctuation present in calibrations. In addition, there is a 0.7% systematic uncertainty present in individual calibrations, represented by the blue error bars. Contact: vikram.upadhyay@cern.ch and grey.williams.wilburn@cern.ch Date: 03, March 2015 Reference: CDS upload |
 [png]  [png] |
|
2014 Data This 1D graph shows the detector-wide CIS calibration constants averages of all the high gain channels (first plot) and all the low gain channels (second plot) from 15 Feb’13 to 14 Sep’14. Note that only “good” channels with stable constants are being considered. A typical channel (LBC19, Channel 13) is plotted alongside for comparison. This channel was powered off from 20 Jan’14 to 10 Feb’14 in which there were 15 runs executed. Hence, one can note some missing “blue triangles” during that time period. The dates where there are no blue or black points imply that there were no CIS runs performed. Contact: vikram.upadhyay@cern.ch and grey.williams.wilburn@cern.ch Date: 17, October 2014 Reference: CDS upload |
 [png]  [png] |
|
2012 Data Time stability of the average high-gain (first plot) and low-gain (second plot) readout calibration constants from February 2012 to December 2012 for 19421 ADC channels. The calibrations are measured in-situ with the charge injection system (CIS). The RMS values printed in the legend represent a measure of the fluctuation present in calibrations. The time stability of a typical channel is shown, with the +/-0.7% minimum systematic uncertainty on the individual calibrations. Contact: noah.david.wasserman@cern.ch and nicholas.dulchinos@cern.ch Date: February 2013 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance Meeting (31/01/2013)
|
 [png]  [png] |
|
2011 Data Time stability of the average high-gain (first plot) and low-gain (second plot) readout calibration constants from March 2011 to June 2011 for 19369 ADC channels. The calibrations are measured in-situ with the charge injection system (CIS). The time stability of a typical channel is shown, with the +/-0.7% minimum systematic uncertainty on the individual calibrations. Contact: brendan.haas@cern.ch and joshua.montgomery@cern.ch Date: September 2011 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance Meeting (05/09/2011)
|
 [png]  [png] |
|
2010 Data Time stability of the average high-gain (first plot) and low-gain (second plot) readout calibration constants from April 2010 to December 2010, covering the 2010 data-taking period, for 19412 ADC channels. The calibrations are measured in-situ with the charge injection system (CIS). The time stability of a typical channel is also shown for each gain, with the +/-0.7% minimum systematic uncertainty on the individual calibrations. Contact: ahard@uchicago.edu and jdougherty@uchicago.edu Date: February 2011 Reference: Approval Slides Equivalent 2009 plots: TileCal Readiness Paper
|
 [png]  [png] |
|
Run 2 Data Percent change in detector-wide CIS constants between August 2015-October 2018. The RMS variation is approximately 0.35%. Channels that are unresponsive or have fluctuating CIS constants are not included. Contact: kachapma@cern.ch and ancsmith@cern.ch Date: 28, June 2019 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance Meeting (28/1/2019) |
 [png] |
|
2018 Data This histogram shows the percent change in detector-wide CIS constants from the time period between 2 April 2018 and 30 April 2018 and the time period between 2 October 2018 and 30 October 2018. The RMS variation is approximately 0.06%. Channels that are unresponsive or have fluctuating CIS constants are not included. Contact: ancsmith@cern.ch and kachapma@cern.ch Date: 28, June 2019 Reference: Atlas TileCal Week (June 2019) |
 [png] |
|
2017 Data Percent change in detector-wide CIS constants between June 2017-October 2017. The RMS variation is approximately 0.35%. Channels that are unresponsive or have fluctuating CIS constants are not included. Original Plot format shown below. Contact: ancsmith@cern.ch and kachapma@cern.ch Date: 28, June 2019 Reference: Atlas TileCal Week (June 2019) |
 [png] |
|
Winter 2017 Data This histogram shows the percent change in detector-wide CIS constants from the time period between 01 June 2016 and 01 July 2016 and the time period between 01 October 2017 and 01 November 2017. The RMS variation is approximately 0.2%. Channels that are unresponsive or have fluctuating CIS constants are not included. Contact: hazal.goksu@cern.ch and ryan.bouabid@cern.ch Date: 18, December 2017 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance Meeting (12/18/2017) |
 [png] |
|
2016 Data Percent change in detector-wide CIS constants between May 2016-November 2016. The RMS variation is approximately 0.35%. Channels that are unresponsive or have fluctuating CIS constants are not included. Original Plot format shown below. Contact: ancsmith@cern.ch and kachapma@cern.ch Date: 28, June 2019 Reference: Atlas TileCal Week (June 2019) |
 [png] |
|
Winter 2016 Data This histogram shows the percent change in detector-wide CIS constants from the time period between 20 April 2016 and 20 May 2016 and the time period between 28 October 2016 and 28 November 2016. The RMS variation is approximately 0.1%. Channels that are unresponsive or have fluctuating CIS constants are not included, accounting for approximately 2% of the 19704 channels in the detector. Contact: michael.george.reid@cern.ch and hlazar@cern.ch Date: 12, December 2016 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance Meeting (12/12/2016) |
 [png] |
|
2015 Data Percent change in detector-wide CIS constants between August 2015-October 2015. The RMS variation is approximately 0.35%. Channels that are unresponsive or have fluctuating CIS constants are not included. Original Plot format shown below. Contact: ancsmith@cern.ch and kachapma@cern.ch Date: 28, June 2019 Reference: Atlas TileCal Week (June 2019) |
 [png] |
|
Fall 2015 Data This histogram shows the percent change in detector-wide CIS constants from the time period between 21 July ’15 and 21 Aug ’15 to the time period between 21 Sept ’15 and 21 Oct ’15. The RMS variation is approximately 0.05%, and channels with a variation greater than 0.5% are targeted for recalibration. Channels that are unresponsive or have fluctuating CIS constants are not included, accounting for approximately 1% of the 19704 channels in the detector. Contact: andrew.mattillion@cern.ch and shannon.towey@cern.ch Date: 03, November 2015 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance Meeting (02/11/2015) |
 [png] |
|
Fall 2014 Data This histogram shows the percent change in detector-wide CIS constants from the time period between 01 Sep’14 and 01 Oct’14 to the time period between 04 Nov’14 and 04 Dec’14. The RMS variation is just over 0.1%, and channels with a variation greater than 0.5% are targeted for recalibration. Channels that are unresponsive or have fluctuating CIS constants are not included, accounting for approximately 1% of the 19704 channels in the detector. Contact: vikram.upadhyay@cern.ch and grey.williams.wilburn@cern.ch Date: 03, March 2015 Reference: CDS upload |
 [png] |
|
2014 Data This histogram shows the percentage change in detector-wide Charge Injection System (CIS) Calibration constants from the time period between 15 Jan’13 and 14 Feb’13 (i.e. before consolidation) to the time period between 15 Aug’14 and 14 Sep’14 (i.e. after consolidation). Note that because of selections of only good regions with stable CIS constants, the number of entries doesn’t necessarily have to equal 19704, the total number of connected channels. Contact: vikram.upadhyay@cern.ch and grey.williams.wilburn@cern.ch Date: 17, October 2014 Reference: CDS upload |
 [png] |
|
2012 Data Fractional change of the charge injection system (CIS) calibration constants for individual ADC channels (low-gain and high-gain) over the entire 2012 data-taking period. The mean of CIS calibration data for February 2012 was compared to the mean of CIS calibration data for December 2012. The calibrations are measured in-situ with CIS. The RMS variation is approximately 0.1% and channels with variation greater than 1.0% are targeted for recalibration. Contact: noah.david.wasserman@cern.ch and nicholas.dulchionos@cern.ch Date: February 2013 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance Meeting (31/01/2013)
|
 [png] |
|
2011 Data Variation of both high-gain and low-gain readout calibration constants for individual ADC channels over the first half of the 2011 data-taking period. The mean of CIS calibration data for March 2011 was compared to the mean of CIS calibration data for June 2011. The calibrations are measured in-situ with the charge injection system (CIS). The RMS variation is approximately 0.1%, and channels with variation greater than 1.0% are targeted for recalibration. Contact: brendan.haas@cern.ch and joshua.montgomery@cern.ch Date: September 2011 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance meeting (05/09/2011)
|
 [png] |
|
2010 Data Variation of both high-gain and low-gain readout calibration constants for individual ADC channels over the entire 2010 data-taking period. The mean of CIS calibration data for April 2010 was compared to the mean of CIS calibration data for December 2010. The calibrations are measured in-situ with the charge injection system (CIS). The RMS variation is approximately 0.1%, and channels with variation greater than 1.0% are targeted for recalibration. Contact: brendan.haas@cern.ch and joshua.montgomery@cern.ch and ahard@uchicago.edu and jdougherty@uchicago.edu Date: February 2011 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance meeting (5/9/11) Equivalent 2009 plots: TileCal Readiness Paper
|
 [png] |
|
Run 2 Data The ratio of CIS constant RMS to mean for all channels, both high-gain (HG) and low-gain (LG), in the detector for the time period between August 2015-November 2018, spanning all of Run 2. Overflow is included in the rightmost bin of both histograms. Channels that are unresponsive or show certain TUCS quality flags are not included. Contact: ancsmith@cern.ch and kachapma@cern.ch Date: 28, June 2019 Reference: Atlas TileCal Week (June 2019) |
 [png] |
|
2018 Data This histogram shows the ratio of CIS constant RMS to mean for all channels, both high-gain (HG) and low-gain (LG), in the detector for the time period between 5 April 2018 and 28 November 2018. Channels that are unresponsive or fail certain TUCS quality flags are not included. Contact: kachapma@cern.ch and ancsmith@cern.ch Date: 28, January 2019 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance Meeting (28/1/2019) |
 [png] |
|
2017 Data The ratio of CIS constant RMS to mean for all channels, both high-gain (HG) and low-gain (LG), in the detector for the time period between May 2017-December 2017. Overflow is included in the rightmost bin of both histograms. Channels that are unresponsive or show certain TUCS quality flags are not included. Original plot format shown below. Contact: ancsmith@cern.ch and kachapma@cern.ch Date: 28, June 2019 Reference: Atlas TileCal Week (June 2019) |
 [png] |
|
Winter 2017 Data This histogram shows the ratio of CIS constant RMS to mean for all channels in the detector for the time period between 15 May 2017 and 05 December 2017. Unstable channels are typically considered to have a RMS/mean above 0.38% as indicated by the blue line. Channels that are unresponsive or fail certain TUCS quality flags are not included. Contact: hazal.goksu@cern.ch and ryan.bouabid@cern.ch Date: 20, December 2017 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance Meeting (12/18/2017) |
 [png] |
|
2016 Data The ratio of CIS constant RMS to mean for all channels, both high-gain (HG) and low-gain (LG), in the detector for the time period between April 2016-November 2016. Overflow is included in the rightmost bin of both histograms. Channels that are unresponsive or show certain TUCS quality flags are not included. Original plot format shown below. Contact: ancsmith@cern.ch and kachapma@cern.ch Date: 28, June 2019 Reference: Atlas TileCal Week (June 2019) |
 [png] |
|
Winter 2016 Data This histogram shows the ratio of CIS constant RMS to mean for all channels in the detector for the time period between 20 April 2016 and 28 November 2016. Unstable channels are typically considered to have an RMS/Mean above 0.38%. Channels that are unresponsive or that fail certain TUCS quality flags are not included, accounting for less than 1% of the 19704 channels in the detector. Contact: michael.george.reid@cern.ch and hlazar.cern.ch Date: 12, December 2016 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance Meeting (12/12/2016) |
 [png] |
|
2015 Data The ratio of CIS constant RMS to mean for all channels, both high-gain (HG) and low-gain (LG), in the detector for the time period between August 2015-October 2015. Overflow is included in the rightmost bin of both histograms. Channels that are unresponsive or show certain TUCS quality flags are not included. Original plot format shown below. Contact: ancsmith@cern.ch and kachapma@cern.ch Date: 28, June 2019 Reference: Atlas TileCal Week (June 2019) |
 [png] |
|
Fall 2015 Data This histogram shows the ratio of CIS constant RMS to mean for all channels in the detector for the time period between 21 Aug ’15 and 21 Oct ’15. Unstable channels are typically considered to have a RMS/mean above 0.38%. Channels that are unresponsive or that fail certain Tucs quality flags are not included, accounting for approximately 1% of the 19704 channels in the detector. Contact: andrew.mattillion@cern.ch and shannon.towey@cern.ch Date: 03, November 2015 Reference: Atlas TileCal Performance Meeting (02/11/2015) |
 [png] |
|
Fall 2014 Data This histogram shows the ratio of CIS constant RMS to mean for all channels in the detector for the time period between 01 Oct’14 and 04 Dec’14. Unstable channels are typically considered to have a RMS/mean above 0.38%. Channels that are unresponsive or have fluctuating CIS constants are not included, accounting for approximately 1% of the 19704 channels in the detector. Contact: vikram.upadhyay@cern.ch and grey.williams.wilburn@cern.ch Date: 03, March 2015 Reference: CDS upload |
 [png] |
Major updates:
-- MichaelaMlynarikova - 2020-05-25 Responsible: MichaelaMlynarikova
Subject: public
Edit | Attach | Topic revision: r2 - 2023-03-15 - PeterThomasCamporeale
ATLAS 
Internal TWiki
Changes
Notifications
RSS Feed
Account 
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/Spread_RMS_Run3_2022.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/LBA_g1_v0_Run_367000_TileOfl02CalibCisLin-RUN2-UPD4-18_2d1.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/LBA_g0_v0_Run_367000_TileOfl02CalibCisLin-RUN2-UPD4-18_2d1.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/LBA_g0_v0_Run_367000_TileOfl02CalibCisLin-RUN2-UPD4-18_2d_max_1.4.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTile/calib_dist_hvalhi2012.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTile/calib_dist_hvallo2012.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/HighgainDetAvgAll_2.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/LowgainDetAvgAll_2.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/det_time_stab_HG-2.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/det_time_stab_LG.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/HighgainDetAvg2017.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/LowgainDetAvg2017.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/HighgainDetAvg_17.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/LowgainDetAvg_17.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/HighgainDetAvg_2016.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/LowgainDetAvg_2016.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/HighgainDetAvg2016.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/LowgainDetAvg2016.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/HighgainDetAvg2015.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/LowgainDetAvg2015.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/CIS_Stability_Hi_Fall2015.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/CIS_Stability_Lo_Fall2015.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/CIS_DetAvgHi_Fall2014.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/CIS_DetAvgLo_Fall2014.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/HighgainDetAvg.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/LowgainDetAvg.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTile/HighgainDetAvg2012.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTile/LowgainDetAvg2012.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/CIS_stability.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/historyFull.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/history2017.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/history_17.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/history2016.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/CIShistory2016.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/history2015.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/CIS_Stability_Percent_Change_Fall2015.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/CIS_Stability_Fall2014.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTileCalibration/CIS_history.png){kind=link}
![[png]](/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/ApprovedPlotsTileCalibrationCIS/../ApprovedPlotsTile/history2012.png){kind=link}
Copyright &© 2008-2023 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. or Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? use Discourse or Send feedback