This page lists the public plots illustrating pileup noise performance studies.
Pileup Noise (2016)
 
Energy distribution for data collected in 2016 in the zerobias stream with 25 ns bunch spacing at a centreofmass energy of 13 TeV (runs 310247, 310249, 310341, 310370) and Pythia 8 Monte Carlo simulation with A3 Minimum Bias tune for the layer A cell with in the Tile Calorimeter. An integration over all modules has been performed. The energy reconstruction method is the default reconstruction method used in Run 2. The depicted distributions correspond to two different pileup conditions with (blue) and (red). The ratio between Data and Monte Carlo simulation is shown in the lower plot. The energy distribution gets wider for higher values of , showing an increasing pileup noise. Contact: Aliaksei Hrynevich aliaksei.hrynevich@cernNOSPAMPLEASE.ch Reference: ATLCOMTILECAL2017007 Date: February, 2017 
[PDF] [EPS] 
The noise distributions in different Tile Calorimeter cells are represented as a function of for zerobias data collected in 2016 (runs 310247, 310249, 310341, 310370) and Pythia 8 Monte Carlo simulation with A3 Minimum Bias tune at a centreofmass energy of 13 TeV with a bunch spacing of 25 ns selected with an average number of interactions per bunch crossing.
The noise was estimated as the standard deviation of the measured cell energy distribution.
The data (Monte Carlo) is represented with closed (open) markers. The cells of Layer A, Layer BC, Layer D and Layer E are shown with different colors. Contact: Aliaksei Hrynevich aliaksei.hrynevich@cernNOSPAMPLEASE.ch Reference: ATLCOMTILECAL2017007 Date: February, 2017 
[PDF] [EPS] 
The Tile Calorimeter noise dependence with the average number of interactions per bunch crossing, , is represented, for several zerobias data runs of 2016 (runs 310247, 310249, 310341, 310370) and Pythia 8 Monte Carlo simulation with A3 Minimum Bias tune at a centreofmass energy of 13 TeV with a bunch spacing of 25 ns.
The noise was estimated as the standard deviation of the energy distribution per cell.
The data (Monte Carlo) is represented with closed (open) markers. The noise is shown for one Tile Calorimeter tower with cells A5, BC5 and D2 in .
Only are shown in data were the reliable statistics is observed. Contact: Aliaksei Hrynevich aliaksei.hrynevich@cernNOSPAMPLEASE.ch Reference: ATLCOMTILECAL2017007 Date: February, 2017 
[PDF] [EPS] 
The Tile Calorimeter noise dependence with the average number of interactions per bunch crossing, , is represented, for several zerobias data runs of 2016 (runs 310247, 310249, 310341, 310370) and Pythia 8 Monte Carlo simulation with A3 Minimum Bias tune at a centreofmass energy of 13 TeV with a bunch spacing of 25 ns.
The noise was estimated as the standard deviation of the energy distribution per cell.
The data (Monte Carlo) is represented with closed (open) markers. The noise is shown for one Tile Calorimeter tower with cells A13, BC13, D6 and E3 in . Only are shown in data were the reliable statistics is observed. Contact: Aliaksei Hrynevich aliaksei.hrynevich@cernNOSPAMPLEASE.ch Reference: ATLCOMTILECAL2017007 Date: February, 2017 
[PDF] [EPS] 
Pileup Noise (2012)  
The noise distribution in different TileCal cells is represented as a function of  of the cells for zero bias run 208781 of 2012 at a centreofmass energy of 8 TeV with a bunch spacing of 50 ns and an average number of interactions < > = 15.7 per bunch crossing). The Monte Carlo was reweighted to the average number of interactions in data, according to the weight given by the PileUpReweighting tool. The noise was estimated as the standard deviation of the measured cell energy distribution. The top left (right) histogram shows the results obtained for the cells of Layer A (Layer BC). The bottom left (right) histogram shows the results obtained for the cells of Layer D (Special Cells). Contact: Juan Pedro Araque juan.pedro.araque.espinosa@cernNOSPAMPLEASE.ch Reference: ATLCOMTILECAL2011022  [pdf] [eps] 
The noise distribution in different TileCal cells is represented as a function of  of the cells for zero bias run 216416 of 2012 at a centreofmass energy of 8 TeV with a bunch spacing of 25 ns and an average number of interactions < > = 10.0 per bunch crossing). The Monte Carlo was reweighted to the average number of interactions in data, according to the weight given by the PileUpReweighting tool. The noise was estimated as the standard deviation of the measured cell energy distribution. The top left (right) histogram shows the results obtained for the cells of Layer A (Layer BC). The bottom left (right) histogram shows the results obtained for the cells of Layer D (Special Cells). Contact: Juan Pedro Araque juan.pedro.araque.espinosa@cernNOSPAMPLEASE.ch Reference: ATLCOMTILECAL2011022  [pdf] [eps] 
The noise in D5 and D6 cells of the Tile calorimeter, located at the outermost layer with 0.9 < η < 1.3, is plotted against the average number of interactions per event. The dashed line shows the electronic noise contribution estimated from special pedestal runs. The noise was estimated as the RMS of the energy deposited in the cell in zero bias data in collisions with a centerofmass energy of 8 TeV and bunch spacing of 25 ns. The data beam parameters and structure were simulated in the MonteCarlo events. The data points refer to the D5 and D6 cells of the Extended Barrel modules EBA39 and EBC39 because they were powered by the new generation low noise Low Voltage Power Supplies, which are going to be used in the whole calorimeter in Run 2. Contact: Vladimir Drugakov v.drugakov@cernNOSPAMPLEASE.ch
Reference: ATLCOMTILECAL2013035 

Energy distribution for data collected in 2012 in the zerobias stream with 50 ns bunch spacing at a centreofmass energy of 8 TeV and
Monte Carlo simulation for the layer A cell with in the Tile Calorimeter. An integration over all modules has been performed.
The energy reconstruction method is the default reconstruction method used in Run 1. The depicted distributions correspond to two
different pileup conditions with (blue) and (red). The ratio between Data and Monte Carlo simulation is shown in the
lower plot. It can be seen that for higher values of the energy distribution gets wider, showing an increasing pileup noise. A
reasonable agreement between data and Monte Carlo simulation is found above 200 MeV. The small difference in the energy
distribution between the Data and Monte Carlo simulation translates into a few tens of MeV difference in the pileup noise, as can be
seen comparing the values written in the figure. Contact: Aliaksei Hrynevich aliaksei.hrynevich@cernNOSPAMPLEASE.ch Reference: ATLCOMTILECAL2015012 Date: March 10, 2015 
[PDF] 
Noise comparison as a function of the mean number of interactions per crossing between data
collected in 2012 in the zerobias stream with 50 ns bunch spacing at a centreofmass energy of 8
TeV and Monte Carlo simulation for the cells in the layer A of the Tile Calorimeter. For data the runs
201555, 205112, 207397, 208781, 210302, 211973 have been used. The noise is derived as the
standard deviation of the energy distribution. In the region where data and Monte Carlo simulation
overlap a good agreement can be seen, with the highest different being of the order of MeV. Contact: Juan Pedro Araque jp.araque@cernNOSPAMPLEASE.ch Reference: ATLCOMTILECAL2015012 Date: March 10, 2015 
[PDF] 
The energy distribution for the cell in the layer A with as a function of the mean number of interactions per
crossing using data collected in 2012 in the zerobias stream with 50 ns bunch spacing and a centreofmass energy of 8
TeV using the default energy reconstruction method used in Run 1. The runs 201555, 205112, 207397, 208781, 210302,
211973 have been used. Different colours represent different regions populated by the 68.27%(red), 95.45% (yellow),
99.73% (green) and 99.99% (blue) of the events. These regions have been derived using the quantiles of the energy
distribution which are used to find the energy values defining the regions populated by each percentage of events. This
figure shows the nongaussian behaviour of the energy distribution given that in a gaussian regime each of the for regions
would scale with the standard deviation and be symmetric. Contact: Juan Pedro Araque jp.araque@cernNOSPAMPLEASE.ch Reference: ATLCOMTILECAL2015012 Date: March 10, 2015 
[PDF] 
Comparison between the RMS of the energy distribution scaled by a factor of 2 (dark yellow circle) and 4 (blue circle) and the
width of the regions that contains the 95.45% (filled dark yellow circle) and 99.99% (filled blue circle) of the events in the energy
distributions (solid circles) for the cell in the layer A with . Data collected in 2012 in the zerobias stream with 50
ns bunch spacing and a centreofmass energy of 8 TeV has been used. The runs 201555, 205112, 207397, 208781, 210302,
211973 have been analysed. Both methods should be similar for the yellow and blue values respectively if the energy
distribution were gaussian. It can be seen that given the nongaussian behaviour of the energy distribution the scaled RMS
values are different from the quantiles approach, usually larger due to the larger tails in comparison with what would be
expected in a gaussian regime. Contact: Juan Pedro Araque jp.araque@cernNOSPAMPLEASE.ch Reference: ATLCOMTILECAL2015012 Date: March 10, 2015 
[PDF] 
Comparison between the RMS of the energy distribution scaled by a factor of 2 (dark yellow circle) and 4 (blue
circle) and the width of the regions that contains the 95.45% (filled dark yellow circle) and 99.99% (filled blue circle)
of the events in the energy distributions (solid circles) for the cell in the layer D with . Data collected in
2012 in the zerobias stream with 50 ns bunch spacing and a centreofmass energy of 8 TeV has been used. The
runs 201555, 205112, 207397, 208781, 210302, 211973 have been analysed. Both methods should be similar for the
yellow and blue values respectively if the energy distribution were gaussian. It can be seen that given the non gaussian
behaviour of the energy distribution the scaled RMS values are different from the quantiles approach,
usually larger due to the larger tails in comparison with what would be expected in a gaussian regime. Contact: Juan Pedro Araque jp.araque@cernNOSPAMPLEASE.ch Reference: ATLCOMTILECAL2015012 Date: March 10, 2015 
[PDF] 
Comparison between the RMS of the energy distribution scaled by a factor of 2 (hollow markers) and the width of the
regions that contains the 95.45% of the events in the energy distributions (filled markers) for the cell in the layer A
with (circular markers) and the cell in the layer D with (squared markers). Data collected
in 2012 in the zerobias stream with 50 ns bunch spacing and a centreofmass energy of 8 TeV has been used. The
runs 201555, 205112, 207397, 208781, 210302, 211973 have been analysed.It can be seen how different can have
different shape in the energy distribution, e.g. the difference seen for the cell in the layer A is smaller for low values of
and grows bigger for high values of while the difference for the layer D cell is maintained. Contact: Juan Pedro Araque jp.araque@cernNOSPAMPLEASE.ch Reference: ATLCOMTILECAL2015012 Date: March 10, 2015 
[PDF] 
Pileup Noise (2011)  
The noise distribution in different TileCal cells is represented as a function of  of the cells for zero bias run 182424 of period F2 of 2011 data (at a centreofmass energy of 7 TeV with a bunch spacing of 50 ns and an average number of interactions < > = 4.8 per bunch crossing). The Monte Carlo was reweighted to the average number of interactions in data, according to the weight given by the PileUpReweighting tool. The noise was estimated as the standard deviation of the measured cell energy distribution. The top left (right) histogram shows the results obtained for the cells of Layer A (Layer BC). The bottom left (right) histogram shows the results obtained for the cells of Layer D (Special Cells). Contact: Susana Santos Susana.Patricia.Santos@cernNOSPAMPLEASE.ch Reference: ATLCOMTILECAL2011022  [pdf] [eps] 
The noise distribution in different TileCal cells is represented as a function of  of the cells for zero bias run 190617 of period M2 of 2011 data (at a centreofmass energy of 7 TeV with a bunch spacing of 50 ns and an average number of interactions < > = 11.3 per bunch crossing). The Monte Carlo was reweighted to the average number of interactions in data, according to the weight given by the PileUpReweighting tool. The noise was estimated as the standard deviation of the measured cell energy distribution. The top left (right) histogram shows the results obtained for the cells of Layer A (Layer BC). The bottom left (right) histogram shows the results obtained for the cells of Layer D (Special Cells). Contact: Susana Santos Susana.Patricia.Santos@cernNOSPAMPLEASE.ch Reference: ATLCOMTILECAL2011022  [pdf] [eps] 
The TileCal noise dependence with the actual number of interactions, , is represented, for several zero bias data runs from different periods of 2011. The noise was estimated as the standard deviation of the mean energy value per cell. The black markers represent data and the red points Monte Carlo. The different marker styles correspond to different cell layers in the TileCal. Contact: Serguei Yanush Serguei.Yanush@cernNOSPAMPLEASE.ch Reference: ATLCOMTILECAL2011022  [pdf] [eps] 
Responsible: PawelKlimek
Subject: public
I  Attachment  History  Action  Size  Date  Who  Comment 

eps  25ns_216416abs.eps  r1  manage  58.1 K  20160823  17:02  PawelKlimek  
25ns_216416abs.pdf  r1  manage  23.4 K  20160823  17:02  PawelKlimek  
png  25ns_216416abs.png  r1  manage  31.4 K  20160823  17:02  PawelKlimek  
eps  50ns_208781abs.eps  r1  manage  58.1 K  20160823  17:04  PawelKlimek  
50ns_208781abs.pdf  r1  manage  23.3 K  20160823  17:04  PawelKlimek  
png  50ns_208781abs.png  r1  manage  34.8 K  20160823  17:04  PawelKlimek  
eps  EnergyDep.eps  r1  manage  29.0 K  20170320  22:51  AliakseiHrynevich  
eps  NoiseEta_F2.eps  r1  manage  42.0 K  20160823  17:02  PawelKlimek  
NoiseEta_F2.pdf  r1  manage  20.7 K  20160823  17:02  PawelKlimek  
png  NoiseEta_F2.png  r1  manage  409.6 K  20160823  17:02  PawelKlimek  
eps  NoiseEta_M2.eps  r1  manage  42.1 K  20160823  17:02  PawelKlimek  
NoiseEta_M2.pdf  r1  manage  20.7 K  20160823  17:02  PawelKlimek  
png  NoiseEta_M2.png  r1  manage  411.0 K  20160823  17:02  PawelKlimek  
eps  NoiseMu.eps  r1  manage  19.5 K  20160823  17:02  PawelKlimek  
NoiseMu.pdf  r1  manage  15.7 K  20160823  17:02  PawelKlimek  
png  NoiseMu.png  r1  manage  498.1 K  20160823  17:02  PawelKlimek  
eps  PileupEtaDep.eps  r1  manage  22.1 K  20170320  22:51  AliakseiHrynevich  
eps  PileupMuDep_EBA.eps  r1  manage  59.7 K  20170320  22:51  AliakseiHrynevich  
eps  PileupMuDep_LBA.eps  r1  manage  52.1 K  20170320  22:51  AliakseiHrynevich  
png  energy2030.png  r1  manage  46.8 K  20160823  17:02  PawelKlimek  
png  energymu.png  r1  manage  31.1 K  20160823  17:02  PawelKlimek  
eps  noise_D5D6_8TeV_25ns_newLVPS_v2.eps  r1  manage  8.6 K  20160823  17:02  PawelKlimek  
png  noise_D5D6_8TeV_25ns_newLVPS_v2.png  r1  manage  26.6 K  20160823  17:02  PawelKlimek  
png  quantA.png  r1  manage  43.7 K  20160823  17:02  PawelKlimek  
png  quantAD.png  r1  manage  42.8 K  20160823  17:02  PawelKlimek  
png  quantD.png  r1  manage  45.4 K  20160823  17:02  PawelKlimek  
png  quantshapes.png  r1  manage  42.2 K  20160823  17:02  PawelKlimek  
EnergyDep.pdf  r2 r1  manage  23.1 K  20170320  22:51  AliakseiHrynevich  
PileupEtaDep.pdf  r2 r1  manage  24.2 K  20170320  22:51  AliakseiHrynevich  
PileupMuDep_EBA.pdf  r2 r1  manage  53.0 K  20170320  22:51  AliakseiHrynevich  
PileupMuDep_LBA.pdf  r2 r1  manage  46.4 K  20170320  22:51  AliakseiHrynevich 