AtlasPublicTopicHeader.png

ApprovedPlotsTileTestBeamResults

Introduction

This page lists the public plots illustrating test beam results.

Test beam results

Pions

Energy responses of positive pions with energies of 20, 50, 100 and 180 GeV incident on the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter with special (90 deg) test beam setup: three layers stack with a prototype barrel module a production barrel module and two extended barrel modules on top. Top: the black dots represent the data obtained during 2000-2003, and the other colored markers represent the MC simulation with several physics lists. Bottom: the ratio of Monte Carlo to data. The error bars are statistical only. Geant4 version 10.1 with the FTFP_BERT, FTFP_BERT_ATL, QGSP_BERT and QGSP_BIC physics lists is used for simulation. FTFP_BERT and FTFP_BERT_ATL can describe data better, mostly within 1%, while QGSP_BERT and QGSP_BIC give lower and higher energy responses separately, the overestimation and underestimation are more than 1%.
Contact: dengfeng.zhang@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-012, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2253040		 pion_Response.png
[PDF]
Energy resolutions of positive pions with energies of 20, 50, 100 and 180 GeV incident on the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter with special (90 deg) test beam setup: three layers stack with a prototype barrel module a production barrel module and two extended barrel modules on top. Top: the black dots represent the data obtained during 2000-2003, and the other colored markers represent the MC simulation with several physics lists. Bottom: the ratio of Monte Carlo to data. The error bars are statistical only. Geant4 version 10.1 with the FTFP_BERT, FTFP_BERT_ATL, QGSP_BERT and QGSP_BIC physics lists is used for simulation. QGSP_BIC can describe data best, within 5%, while FTFP_BERT, FTFP_BERT_ATL and QGSP_BERT give worse energy resolutions, wider more than 5%.
Contact: dengfeng.zhang@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-012, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2253040		 pion_Resolution.png
[PDF]
Lateral spreads of positive pions with energies of 20, 50, 100 and 180 GeV incident on the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter with special (90 deg) test beam setup: three layers stack with a prototype barrel module a production barrel module and two extended barrel modules on top. Top: the black dots represent the data obtained during 2000-2003, and the other colored markers represent the MC simulation with several physics lists. Bottom: the ratio of Monte Carlo to data. The error bars are statistical only. Geant4 version 10.1 with the FTFP_BERT, FTFP_BERT_ATL, QGSP_BERT and QGSP_BIC physics lists is used for simulation. QGSP_BIC can describe data best, and QGSP_BERT is a good alternative choice, while FTFP_BERT and FTFP_BERT_ATL give wider spreads at 20GeV and too narrow spreads at higher energy.
Contact: dengfeng.zhang@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-012, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2253040		 pion_LateralSpread.png
[PDF]
Longitudinal shower profiles of positive pions with an energy of 20 GeV incident on the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter with special (90 deg) test beam setup: three layers stack with a prototype barrel module a production barrel module and two extended barrel modules on top. Top: the black dots represent the data obtained during 2000-2003, and the other colored markers represent the MC simulation with several physics lists. Bottom: the ratio of Monte Carlo to data. The error bars are statistical only. Geant4 version 10.1 with the FTFP_BERT, FTFP_BERT_ATL, QGSP_BERT and QGSP_BIC physics lists is used for simulation. Simulated showers tend to be longer: the mean deposited energy is 40% higher at a shower depth of 10λ.
Contact: dengfeng.zhang@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-012, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2253040		 pion_LongitudinalProfile_20GeV.png
[PDF]
Longitudinal shower profiles of positive pions with an energy of 50 GeV incident on the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter with special (90 deg) test beam setup: three layers stack with a prototype barrel module a production barrel module and two extended barrel modules on top. Top: the black dots represent the data obtained during 2000-2003, and the other colored markers represent the MC simulation with several physics lists. Bottom: the ratio of Monte Carlo to data. The error bars are statistical only. Geant4 version 10.1 with FTFP_BERT, FTFP_BERT_ATL, QGSP_BERT and QGSP_BIC physics lists is used for simulation. Simulated showers also tend to be longer: the mean deposited energy is 20% higher at a shower depth of 10λ.
Contact: dengfeng.zhang@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-012, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2253040		 pion_LongitudinalProfile_50GeV.png
[PDF]
Longitudinal shower profiles of positive pions with an energy of 100 GeV incident on the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter with special (90 deg) test beam setup: three layers stack with a prototype barrel module a production barrel module and two extended barrel modules on top. Top: the black dots represent the data obtained during 2000-2003, and the other colored markers represent the MC simulation with several physics lists. Bottom: the ratio Monte Carlo to data. The error bars are statistical only. Geant4 version 10.1 with FTFP_BERT, FTFP_BERT_ATL, QGSP_BERT and QGSP_BIC physics lists is used for simulation. Simulated showers tend to be shorter: the mean deposited energy is ~15% lower at a shower depth of 13λ.
Contact: dengfeng.zhang@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-012, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2253040		 pion_LongitudinalProfile_100GeV.png
[PDF]
Longitudinal shower profiles of positive pions with an energy of 180 GeV incident on the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter with special (90 deg) test beam setup: three layers stack with a prototype barrel module a production barrel module and two extended barrel modules on top. Top: the black dots represent the data obtained during 2000-2003, ant the other colored markers represent the MC simulation with several physics lists. Bottom: the ratio of Monte Carlo to data. The error bars are statistical only. Geant4 version 10.1 with FTFP_BERT, FTFP_BERT_ATL, QGSP_BERT and QGSP_BIC physics lists is used for simulation. Simulated showers agree well with data up to 16λ.
Contact: dengfeng.zhang@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-012, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2253040		 pion_LongitudinalProfile_180GeV.png
[PDF]

Protons

Energy responses of protons with energies of 50, 100 and 180 GeV incident on the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter with special (90 deg) test beam setup: three layers stack with a prototype barrel module a production barrel module and two extended barrel modules on top. Top: the black dots represent the data obtained during 2000-2003, and the other colored markers represent the MC simulation with several physics lists. Bottom: the ratio of Monte Carlo to data. The error bars are statistical only. Geant4 version 10.1 with the FTFP_BERT, FTFP_BERT_ATL, QGSP_BERT and QGSP_BIC physics lists is used for simulation. QGSP_BIC can describe data best, within 1%. FTFP_BERT, FTFP_BERT_ATL and QGSP_BERT give lower energy responses, more than 2%.
Contact: dengfeng.zhang@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-012, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2253040		 proton_Response.png
[PDF]
Energy resolutions of protons with energies of 50, 100 and 180 GeV incident on the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter with special (90 deg) test beam setup: three layers stack with a prototype barrel module a production barrel module and two extended barrel modules on top. Top: the black dots represent the data obtained during 2000-2003, and the other colored markers represent the MC simulation with several physics lists. Bottom: the ratio of Monte Carlo to data. The error bars are statistical only. Geant4 version 10.1 with the FTFP_BERT, FTFP_BERT_ATL, QGSP_BERT and QGSP_BIC physics lists is used for simulation. FTFP_BERT, FTFP_BERT_ATL and QGSP_BERT can describe data better, narrower within ~5% and wider within 10%, while QGSP_BIC gives worse energy resolutions.
Contact: dengfeng.zhang@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-012, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2253040		 proton_Resolution.png
[PDF]
Lateral spreads of protons with energies of 50, 100 and 180 GeV incident on the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter with special (90 deg) test beam setup: three layers stack with a prototype barrel module a production barrel module and two extended barrel modules on top. Top: the black dots represent the data obtained during 2000-2003, and the other colored markers represent the MC simulation with several physics lists. Bottom: the ratio of Monte Carlo to data. The error bars are statistical only. Geant4 version 10.1 with the FTFP_BERT, FTFP_BERT_ATL, QGSP_BERT and QGSP_BIC physics lists is used for simulation. All four physics lists give too wider lateral spreads at low energy, more than 30% at 50 GeV, more than 10-20% at 100 GeV, while predictions at 180 GeV are good.
Contact: dengfeng.zhang@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-012, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2253040		 proton_LateralSpread.png
[PDF]
Longitudinal shower profiles of protons with an energy of 50 GeV incident the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter with special (90 deg) test beam setup: three layers stack with a prototype barrel module a production barrel module and two extended barrel modules on top. Top: the black dots represent the data obtained during 2000-2003, and the other colored markers represent the MC simulation with several physics lists. Bottom: the ratio of Monte Carlo to data. The error bars are statistical only. Geant4 version 10.1 with FTFP_BERT, FTFP_BERT_ATL, QGSP_BERT and QGSP_BIC physics lists is used for simulation. Simulated showers are little shorter: the mean deposited energy is ~20% lower at a shower depth of 9λ.
Contact: dengfeng.zhang@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-012, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2253040		 proton_LongitudinalProfile_50GeV.png
[PDF]
Longitudinal shower profiles of protons with an energy of 100 GeV incident on the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter with special (90 deg) test beam setup: three layers stack with a prototype barrel module a production barrel module and two extended barrel modules on top. Top: the black dots represent the data obtained during 2000-2003, and the other colored markers represent the MC simulation with several physics lists. Bottom: the ratio of Monte Carlo to data. The error bars are statistical only. Geant4 version 10.1 with FTFP_BERT, FTFP_BERT_ATL, QGSP_BERT and QGSP_BIC physics lists is used for simulation. Simulated showers agree well with data up to 10λ, while the mean deposited energy is ~10% higher at the tail, this means the simulated showers are little longer.
Contact: dengfeng.zhang@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-012, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2253040		 proton_LongitudinalProfile_100GeV.png
[PDF]
Longitudinal shower profiles of protons with an energy of 180 GeV incident on the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter with special (90 deg) test beam setup: three layers stack with a prototype barrel module a production barrel module and two extended barrel modules on top. Top: the black dots represent the data obtained during 2000-2003, and the other colored markers represent the MC simulation with several physics lists. Bottom: the ratio of Monte Carlo over data. The error bars are statistical only. Geant4 version 10.1 with FTFP_BERT, FTFP_BERT_ATL, QGSP_BERT and QGSP_BIC physics lists is used for simulation. Simulated showers are a little longer: the mean deposited energy is 10-20% higher from the shower depth of 6λ to 15λ.
Contact: dengfeng.zhang@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-012, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2253040		 proton_LongitudinalProfile_180GeV.png
[PDF]

Electrons

The scatter plot of overall shower profile (C_tot) vs longitudinal shower profile (C_long) used for electron/hadron separation of 50 GeV beams hitting on the A-4 cell at 20°. The region on the right/top corresponds to electrons, the other to hadrons. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data.
Contact: Priscilla.Pani@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2018-002, http://cds.cern.ch/record/2299394 		ClongvsCtot50_TDR.pdf[PDF][EPS]
Distributions of the total energy deposited in the calorimeter obtained using electrons beams of 20, 50 and 100 GeV incident in the cell A-4 of the middle layer of the stack at 20°. The solid (dashed) distribution corresponds to experimental (simulated) data. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data. Simulated results obtained using the Geant 4.10.1 (FTFP_BERT physics list).
Contact: Priscilla.Pani@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2018-002, http://cds.cern.ch/record/2299394 		EtotClong_TDR.pdf[PDF][EPS]
Ratios E_fit/E_beam obtained using electrons beams of 20, 50 and 100 GeV incident in the cell A-4 of the Demonstrator module at 20 °. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data.
Contact: Priscilla.Pani@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2018-002, http://cds.cern.ch/record/2299394 		Linearity2_TDR.pdf[PDF][EPS]
The cell response of electrons entering the calorimeter modules exposed to the beam at incidence angle of 20 deg, normalized to beam energy, with one entry for each A-cell measured. The plot contains data at various energies ranging from 20 to 180 GeV. The mean value 1.050±0.003 pC/GeV defines the Tilecal EM scale factor. The RMS spread of (2.4±0.1)% is due to local variations in individual tile & tile/fiber responses as confirmed by special MC studies.
Contact: Iouri.Koultchitski@cern.ch
References: ATL-TILECAL-PUB-2009-002, NIM A 606 (2009) 362-394		 unif_20deg_new.png

Muons

The signal of LBC module per unit path length produced by -90° muons incident on individual tile-row’s center. Green points represent TB 2001-2003 results, black points represent TB 2018 results. Cs source calibration applied for both cases.
Contact: Tamar.Zakareishvili@cern.ch
References: ATL-TILECAL-SLIDE-2019-033, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2654416 		EVSTile.pdf[PDF][EPS]
Cell D-3, Tile 10 surface response as a function of the particle impact point, using test beam 2018 -90° muon data.
Contact: Tamar.Zakareishvili@cern.ch
References: ATL-TILECAL-SLIDE-2019-033, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2654416 		T10_scatter_new.pdf[PDF][EPS]
Cell BC-5, Tile 6 surface response as a function of the particle impact point, using test beam 2018 -90° muon data.
Contact: Tamar.Zakareishvili@cern.ch
References: ATL-TILECAL-SLIDE-2019-033, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2654416 		T6_scatter_new.pdf[PDF][EPS]
Cell A-6, Tile 2 surface response as a function of the particle impact point, using test beam 2018 -90° muon data.
Contact: Tamar.Zakareishvili@cern.ch
References: ATL-TILECAL-SLIDE-2019-033, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2654416 		T2_scatter_new.pdf[PDF][EPS]
R ratio - the ratio of the central region average response over the full region average response of the tile. Violet stars represent Sr measurements of individual tiles. Blue stars represent measurements at the test beam 2018 using -90° muon beam, average behavior of many tiles in a module. As error bars RMS values are displaied for both cases.
Contact: Tamar.Zakareishvili@cern.ch
References: ATL-TILECAL-SLIDE-2019-033, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2654416 		R_ratio.pdf[PDF][EPS]
U-shape - the dependence of the cell response on the azimuth coordinate of impact point of the incident particle using test beam 2018 -90° muon data. Tile 2 distribution central region (∆φ range about [-0.0085, +0.0085] rad) normalized to one.
Contact: Tamar.Zakareishvili@cern.ch
References: ATL-TILECAL-SLIDE-2019-033, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2654416 		U-shape_1.pdf[PDF][EPS]
Distribution of the quantity dE/dl for the cell A-8 obtained using experimental (full points) and simulated muons (solid lines) at -90° hitting in the middle of Tile-row 2. The curve is fit of Landau function, convoluted with Gaussian, to the data. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data. Simulated results obtained using the Geant 4.10.1 (FTFP_BERT physics list).
Contact: Tamar.Zakareishvili@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2018-002, http://cds.cern.ch/record/2299394 		A8_data_MC_fit_NoPeak.pdf[PDF][EPS]
Ratios of the truncated means of the distributions of the energy deposited in the A layer cells per unit of path length obtained using -90°; experimental and simulated muon data as a function of the cell number. The horizontal line corresponds to the mean value of the determinations. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data. Simulated results obtained using the Geant 4.10.1 (FTFP_BERT physics list).
Contact: Tamar.Zakareishvili@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2018-002, http://cds.cern.ch/record/2299394 		Alayer_dEdl_MC_ratio.pdf[PDF][EPS]
Ratios of the truncated means of the distributions of the energy deposited in the BC layer cells per unit of path length obtained using -90°; experimental and simulated muon data as a function of the cell number. The horizontal line corresponds to the mean value of the determinations. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data. Simulated results obtained using the Geant 4.10.1 (FTFP_BERT physics list).
Contact: Tamar.Zakareishvili@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2018-002, http://cds.cern.ch/record/2299394 		BClayer_dEdl_MC_ratio.pdf[PDF][EPS]
Ratios of the truncated means of the distributions of the energy deposited in the D layer cells per unit of path length obtained using -90°; experimental and simulated muon data as a function of the cell number. The horizontal line corresponds to the mean value of the determinations. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data. Simulated results obtained using the Geant 4.10.1 (FTFP_BERT physics list).
Contact: Tamar.Zakareishvili@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2018-002, http://cds.cern.ch/record/2299394 		Dlayer_dEdl_MC_ratio.pdf[PDF][EPS]
Muon signal reconstructed using Fit method and Optimal Filter when 150GeV muons are hitting LBC – Demonstrator, at -90 ° (cell A7 PMT#31 response).
Contact: Tamar.Zakareishvili@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2242000		 c_A7_31.png
Muon timing reconstructed using Fit method and Optimal Filter when 150GeV muons are hitting LBC – Demonstrator, at -90 ° (cell A7 PMT#31 response).
Contact: Tamar.Zakareishvili@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2242000		 c_timing_A7_31.png
Noise in PMT#2 connected to cell A1 (LBC - Demonstrator).
Electronic noise RMS was evaluated for each channel of LBC using amplitude of the first sample.
Noise is about 0.75 counts for most of the channels.
N.B: In this part of the analysis true 12-bit ADC readout of new system was converted to 10 bits range, to be compatible with 10-bit readout in legacy system (i.e. actual signal in ADC counts is 4 times bigger).
Contact: Tamar.Zakareishvili@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2242000		 c_h1.png
Plot on top - Cell A1 PMT#2 muon response response in LBC – Demonstrator, obtained after applying cuts on muon’s timing and determining reconstruction method for each event.
For noise evaluation several thresholds were considered:
C * FirstSampleRMS , where C=2, 3, 4.
Plot on bottom - Cell A2 PMT#6 response in LBC – Demonstrator.
Contact: Tamar.Zakareishvili@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2242000		 0NoLog.png" c_withAllCutsA2_6NoLog.png"
A10 cell PMT#48 vs PMT#47 signal response in LBC – Demonstrator, obtained after applying cuts on muon’s timing and determining reconstruction method for each event, for noise threshold is taken 3*FirstSampleRMS.
Contact: Tamar.Zakareishvili@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2242000		 A10.png
A10 cell signal response (sum of PMT#48 and PMT#47) in LBC – Demonstrator, obtained after applying cuts on muon’s timing and determining reconstruction method for each event, for noise threshold is taken 3*FirstSampleRMS.
Contact: Tamar.Zakareishvili@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2242000		 c_signal_of_A10_48_and_A10_47.png
dE/dX for A layer using 150GeV muons hitting LBC – Demonstrator, at -90 °.
dE - signal truncated mean (95%) value in the range of [0,1.5] pC in each cell.
dX - length of a cell.
Contact: Tamar.Zakareishvili@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2242000		 c_grdEdX3rms.png

Muon signal in A layer After cut is placed on total E of D1 ( [40,200] adc counts ) and on total E of BC2 and BC3 ( [100,350] adc counts ).
First plot – Cell A2 PMT#6 response
Second plot – Cell A2 PMT#9 response
Third plot – Cell A2 (sum of PMT#6 and PMT#9) response
100GeV muons, hitting LBC – Demonstrator at 20°.
Pedestal on plots - reconstructed signal in a given cell from a run when beam doesn’t hit Demonstrator.
Contact: hlazar@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2242000		 A2_6.pngA2_9.pngA2resized.png
First plot - Muon signal in BC layer After cut is placed on total E of A2 ( [20,200] adc counts ) and on total E of D1 ( [40,200] adc counts ).
Second plot - Muon signal in BC layer After cut is placed on total E of A2 ( [20,200] adc counts ) and on total E of BC2 and BC3 ( [100,350] adc counts ).
Third plot – Total muon signal in LBC After cut is placed on total E of A2 ( [20,200] adc counts ), on total E of BC2 and BC3 ( [100,350] adc counts ) and on total E of D1 ( [40,200] adc counts ).
100GeV muons, hitting LBC – Demonstrator at 20°.
Pedestal on plots - reconstructed signal in a given cell from a run when beam doesn’t hit Demonstrator.
Contact: hlazar@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2242000		 BC23.pngD1.pngTotE.png

Example of the isolated muon signal as measured in the stand-alone calibration test beams of the calorimeter at η=0.35 in the whole tower (top) and in a cell of the last radial compartment (bottom). The EM scale is 1.05 pC/GeV. The signal is very well separated from the noise (shown by narrow peaks), the signal-to-noise ratio is ~44 (tower) and ~18 (last radial compartment) respectively. The last radial compartment can be used to tag muons inside jets. The response shown is associated with the full resolution data available at trigger level 2 and above.
Contact: Tomas.Davidek@cern.ch and Lukas.Pribyl@cern.ch
References: ATL-TILECAL-PUB-2009-002, NIM A 606 (2009) 362-394		 muon_response_tower.pngmuon_response_dcell.png
The total calorimeter response to 180 GeV muons, normalized to the path length, as a function of pseudorapidity (full circles). The response is defined as the mean value of the measured energy loss spectrum truncated at 97.5% of total number of entries. Results are given on EM scale, multiplied by the factor e/μ=0.91 in addition. Geant4 MC simulation results are shown with open squares. Larger differences between data and MC are observed in the extended barrel (|η|>0.9), where the muon path length is more sensitive to the actual impact point.
Contact: Lukas.Pribyl@cern.ch
References: ATL-TILECAL-PUB-2009-002, NIM A 606 (2009) 362-394		 muon_eta_data_mc.png
The total ATLAS Tile calorimeter response to muons at pseudorapidity ±0.35 as a function of the muon energy for stand-alone testbeam configuration and corresponding GEANT4 MC simulation (geant4-09-02, Athena 15.0.0). The peak response is defined as the most probable value of the measured energy loss spectrum acquired from the Landau-Gaussian convolution fit, the truncated mean as the mean value of the measured energy loss spectrum truncated at 97.5% of total number of entries, the trimmed mean as the mean value of the measured energy loss spectrum calculated by discarding a 2.5% entries of the lowest and the highest response. The results are given on the EM scale 1.05 pC/GeV. Measurements were taken with several calorimeter modules.
Modification: Jan/14/2010 Energy loss (GeV /m) used instead of total signal (GeV)
Modification: Feb/5/2010 Bug fixed and trimmed mean introduced
Contact: Tibor.Zenis@cern.ch
References: 		muon_dedx.png
table_muon_edep.png

The response of the Tile module JINR_34 to 20 GeV muons obtained with TileCal standalone test-beam 2002 setup and corresponding GEANT4 MC simulation (geant4-09-02, Athena 15.0.0). The values are the average responses of an eta scan between -0.65 to 0.45 with step 0.1 excluding points ±0.05. The peak response is defined as the most probable value of the measured energy loss spectrum acquired from the Landau×Gaussian convolution fit, the truncated mean as the mean value of the measured energy loss spectrum truncated at 97.5% of total number of entries. The results are given on the EM scale 1.05 pC/GeV.
Contact: Tibor.Zenis@cern.ch
References:*

mu_20_samp-3.png
Noise sample probability density function (PDF) from the summing signal, considering testbeam data from D1 cell of one TileCal prototype module. Despites the Gaussian behavior, the hypothesis test rejects the Gaussian model. Similar behavior is also observed for the D2 cell. Contact: ciodaro@cern.ch References: cds.cern.ch/record/1394337 noisefit.png
Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for the TileCal muon signal at the summing circuit input (D1L, D1R, D2L, D2R) and at the summing circuit output (D1Sum, D2Sum), considering testbeam data from one TileCal prototype module. The SNR is defined as the ratio between the most probable value from the muon energy distribution and the noise energy RMS. Contact: ciodaro@cern.ch References: cds.cern.ch/record/1394337 snr.png
Correlation matrix for the 5 digital samples, centered around the expected signal peak, for the noise seen at the output of the summing circuit connected to the D1 cell, before and after the matched filter whitening stage. The results consider testbeam data from one TileCal prototype module. Similar behavior is also observed for the D2 cell. Contact: ciodaro@cern.ch References: cds.cern.ch/record/1394337 white.png
Charge curve for the principal component analysis for the muon signal at the output of the summing circuit connected to the D1 cell, considering testbeam data from one TileCal prototype module. Most of the summing signal energy (variance) is concentrated in the first two principal components. Similar behavior is also observed for the D2 cell. Contact: ciodaro@cern.ch References: cds.cern.ch/record/1394337 charge.png
Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve for the matched filter discriminators, considering the simple and Gaussian versions, for one and two principal components. The discriminators operate over the signals at the output of the summing circuit for both D1 and D2 cells, considering testbeam data from one TileCal prototype module. Contact: ciodaro@cern.ch *References: cds.cern.ch/record/1394337 roctb.png

Reconstructed energy as a function of the simplified matched filter output, for the muon signals from the summing circuit connected to the D1 cell, considering testbeam data from one TileCal prototype module. Through the linear model, the cell energy can be estimated from the matched filter output. In order to consider the differences between cells, each D cell must have its set of constants. Contact: ciodaro@cern.ch References: cds.cern.ch/record/1394337

mf_calib.png

Pions

Pion response vs. energy of incident pions at |η|=0.35
- Top: measurements were taken with many calorimeter modules and the response of each is normalized to the mean response at the common energy of 180 GeV. Open squares represent Geant4.8.3 Monte Carlo simulations, with QGSP and Bertini intranuclear cascade models.
- Bottom: experimental data corrected for longitudinal and transverse energy leakage as derived from data taken in special 90 deg configuration and Geant4 MC simulation. The energy dependence is due to calorimeter non-compensation; the displayed fit uses Groom's parametrization of the non-EM component of hadronic showers with F_h = (E_beam/E_0) ^m-1
Contact: Tomas.Davidek@cern.ch
References: ATL-TILECAL-PUB-2009-002, NIM A 606 (2009) 362-394		 pion_linearity_no_corr_at_all_label.pngpion_lin_fits_aver_1fixed_nomc_new1.png
The Tilecal-standalone energy resolution for pions impinging on the calorimeter at |η|=0.35 (equivalent calorimeter depth 7.9λ), as a function of the beam energy. MC simulation results (Geant4.8.3 QGSP+Bertini models, shown with open squares) are in agreement with data (full circles). The electronic noise contribution is found to be negligible so only statistical and constant terms are used in the fit.
Note that in the ATLAS configuration the total calorimeter (EM LAr + Tilecal) depth is larger by about 30%, hence the longitudinal leakage is smaller and its contribution to the energy resolution degradation is smaller (see also next plot). The expected constant term for jet energy resolution in ATLAS is typically 2.6% ( CERN-OPEN-2008-020, page 306, Table 3)
Contact: Matteo.Volpi@cern.ch and Tomas.Davidek@cern.ch
References: ATL-TILECAL-PUB-2009-002, NIM A 606 (2009) 362-394		 pion_resolution_new_realbeam.png
The dependence of the energy resolution of Tilecal on the depths of the calorimeter for pions as measured in the 90deg testbeam configuration. The resolution is defined as σ/peak of a Gaussian fit to the distribution in the range -2σ to 2σ around the peak value. The resolution is normalized to the one at 10.9 λ. Vertical lines indicate the depth of TileCal (7.4λ) and full ATLAS calorimeter (9.7λ) at η = 0.
Contact: Margar.Simonyan@cern.ch
References: ATL-TILECAL-PUB-2009-009, submitted to NIM A		 resSigmaOverPeak1.png
Top: Longitudinal shower profiles of pion (left) and proton (right) induced showers measured in the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter with special (90 deg) test beam setup. The lines indicate fit to data. Bottom: the ratio Monte Carlo over data of longitudinal shower profiles for pion (left) and proton (right) induced showers. Geant4 version 9.2 with QGSP_BERT physics list is used for simulation.
Contact: Margar.Simonyan@cern.ch
References: ATL-TILECAL-PUB-2009-009, submitted to NIM A		 pionFit.gifprotonFit.gif pion_QGSP_BERT_G492_Data.gif proton_QGSP_BERT_G492_Data.gif

Hadrons

Distribution of the energy E_raw in GeV measured in the calorimeter modules in the case of particle beam energiy equal to 16 GeV. The muons and spurious events were rejected in the analysis requiring E_raw larger than 5 GeV as shown in the histogram. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data.
Contact: Tigran.Mkrtchyan@cern.ch and Claudio.Santoni@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2020-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2706433, https://indico.cern.ch/event/813822/contributions/3648348 		EnoCut18gev.pdf[PDF]
Scatter plot of the signals measured in the Cherenkov counter 3 - Cher3, as a function of the signals measured in the Cherenkov counter 1 - Cher1, in ADC counts. The histogram was produced analysing data of beam particles with an energy equal to 18 GeV. The cut values applied in the analysis to select K/p (left/bottom) and e/π (right/top) events are shown with red lines. The color bands represent the number of events in the bins. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data.
Contact: Tigran.Mkrtchyan@cern.ch and Claudio.Santoni@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2020-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2706433, https://indico.cern.ch/event/813822/contributions/3648348 		Cher1vsCher3_18gevLine.pdf[PDF]
Scatter plot C_long vs C_tot [1] of e/π sample events produced by particle beams with energies equal to 18 GeV(a) and 30 GeV (b). The color bands represent the number of events in the bins. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data. [1] [Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A606 (2009) 362]
Contact: Tigran.Mkrtchyan@cern.ch and Claudio.Santoni@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2020-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2706433, https://indico.cern.ch/event/813822/contributions/3648348 		Scat_clongctot_data_18gev.pdf[PDF]
The black dot distributions on the histogram represent the C_tot [1] distributions of e/π sample events with E_beam equal to 18 GeV. The events were selected requiring C_long ≥ 0.6. Three and two Gaussian fit functions (blue curves) are overlapped with the histogram. The functions parameters were obtained using the maximum likelihood method. Red dashed curves show the individual Gauss contributions. In the histogram, the Gauss function with the largest value of μ describes the electron contamination. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data. [1] [Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A606 (2009) 362]
Contact: Tigran.Mkrtchyan@cern.ch and Claudio.Santoni@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2020-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2706433, https://indico.cern.ch/event/813822/contributions/3648348 		mlfit3gaus_ctot6_18gev.pdf[PDF]
Scatter plot of the Cherenkov counter 2 – Cher2 signals in ADC counts units vs the energy measured in the calorimeter - E_raw, obtained analyzing K/p sample events produced by particle beam with energy equal to 18 GeV. The cuts applied in the analysis to select kaon and proton events are shown with the red lines. The color bands represent the number of events in the bins. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data.
Contact: Tigran.Mkrtchyan@cern.ch and Claudio.Santoni@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2020-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2706433, https://indico.cern.ch/event/813822/contributions/3648348 		EvsCher2_18gev.pdf[PDF]
Distribution of the reconstructed energy E_raw of the π/e samples events with E_beam equal to 16 GeV. The full black dots represent the experimental data. Only statistical errors are shown. The full red dots histogram correspond to the expected distribution of the electrons contaminating the samples. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data.
Contact: Tigran.Mkrtchyan@cern.ch and Claudio.Santoni@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2020-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2706433, https://indico.cern.ch/event/813822/contributions/3648348 		Eraw_elec_18gev.pdf[PDF]
Distributions of the reconstructed energy E_raw in the case of pions (first plot), kaons (second plot) and protons (third plot) with E_beam = 18 GeV. The full dots represent the experimental data. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. The solid curves in red correspond to the fit of a Gaussian function to the data in a region ± 2σ around the peak value. The histograms correspond to the predictions of the Monte Carlo simulation. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data.
Contact: Tigran.Mkrtchyan@cern.ch and Claudio.Santoni@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2020-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2706433, https://indico.cern.ch/event/813822/contributions/3648348 		Eraw_subt_18gev.pdf[PDF] 18gev_kaons.pdf[PDF] 18gev_protons.pdf[PDF]
Energy response ratios, R^〈Eraw〉 = 〈Eraw〉/ E_beam, measured (red circles) and predicted by Monte Carlo simulation (black squares) as a function of beam energy obtained in the case of pion (first plot), kaon (second plot) and proton (third plot) beams. The experimental result uncertainties include statistical and systematic effects combined in quadrature. Simulated results show only statistical uncertainties. The red solid (black dashed) curves are fits of the experimental (simulated) data points. The dashed red band takes into account the correlated systematic uncertainties in the case of the experimental determinations. In the bottom of the histograms are shown the fractional differences ∆R^〈Eraw〉 = 〈Eraw〉 / 〈Eraw_MC〉 - 1. The uncertainties includes statistical and systematic effects combined in quadrature. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data.
Contact: Tigran.Mkrtchyan@cern.ch and Claudio.Santoni@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2020-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2706433, https://indico.cern.ch/event/813822/contributions/3648348 		RerawPion.pdf[PDF] RerawKaon.pdf[PDF] RerawProton.pdf[PDF]
Fractional resolution, R^σraw = σraw / E_beam, measured (red circles) and predicted by Monte Carlo simulation (black quares) as a function of 1⁄√Ebeam obtained in the case of pion (first plot), kaon (second plot) and proton (third plot) beams. The values of E_beam in the square roots are in GeV. The experimental result uncertainties include statistical and systematic effects combined in quadrature. Simulated results show only statistical uncertainties. The red solid (black dashed) curves are fits of the experimental (simulated) data points. The dashed red band takes into account the correlated systematic uncertainties in the case of the experimental determinations. In the bottom of the histograms are shown the fractional differences ∆σraw = σraw / σraw_mc - 1. The uncertainties includes statistical and systematic effects combined in quadrature. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data.
Contact: Tigran.Mkrtchyan@cern.ch and Claudio.Santoni@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2020-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2706433, https://indico.cern.ch/event/813822/contributions/3648348 		RsigmaPion.pdf[PDF] RsigmaKaon.pdf[PDF] RsigmaProton.pdf[PDF]
First histogram: R^Eraw(K)/R^Eraw(π) (red) and R^Eraw(p)/R^Eraw(π) (blue) as a function of E_beam obtained using experimental (full circles) and simulated data (open circles), where R^Eraw= / E_beam. Second histogram: R^σraw(K)/R^σraw(π) (red) and R^σraw(p)/R^σraw(π) (blue) as a function of E_beam obtained using experimental (full circles) and simulated data (open circles), as a function of E_beam, where R^σraw = σraw / E_beam. In the case of experimental results, uncertainties include statistical and systematic effects combined in quadrature. In the case of simulated results, only statistical uncertainties are shown. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data.
Contact: Tigran.Mkrtchyan@cern.ch and Claudio.Santoni@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2020-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2706433, https://indico.cern.ch/event/813822/contributions/3648348 		Ratio_Reraw.pdf[PDF] Ratio_Rsigma.pdf[PDF]
First plot shows the values of F_h(K)/F_h(π) as a function of E_beam obtained using experimental (full circles) and simulated data (open circles) where F_h represents the non-electromagnetic energy component of showers induced by incident hadrons. Second plot shows the values of F_h(p)/F_h(π) as a function of E_beam obtained using experimental (full circles) and simulated data (open circles). In the case of experimental results uncertainties include statistical and systematic effects combined in quadrature. In the case of simulated results only statistical uncertainties are shown. The red solid (black dashed) curves are fits of the data (MC) points. The dashed red bands take into account the correlated systematic uncertainties. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data. [1] [Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A572 (2007) 633-653]
Contact: Tigran.Mkrtchyan@cern.ch and Claudio.Santoni@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2020-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2706433, https://indico.cern.ch/event/813822/contributions/3648348 		Ratio_K_Fh.pdf[PDF] Ratio_p_Fh.pdf[PDF]
Scatter plot of the Cherenkov 1 signal vs. the energy measured in the calorimeter for 18 GeV particle beams. The cuts applied in the analysis are shown. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data.
Contact: Tigran.Mkrtchyan@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2018-002, http://cds.cern.ch/record/2299394 		18_cher1_totEnVisualPreliminary.pdf[PDF][EPS]
Scatter plot of the Cherenkov 3 signal vs. the energy measured in the calorimeter for 18 GeV particle beams. The cuts applied in the analysis are shown. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data.
Contact: Tigran.Mkrtchyan@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2018-002, http://cds.cern.ch/record/2299394 		18_cher3_totEnVisualPreliminary.pdf[PDF][EPS]
Scatter plot of the Cherenkov 2 signal vs. the energy measured in the calorimeter for 18 GeV particle beams. The cuts applied in the analysis are shown (e/π selection). Results using September 2017 TestBeam data.
Contact: Tigran.Mkrtchyan@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2018-002, http://cds.cern.ch/record/2299394 		18_cher2_totEn_epionCutVisualPreliminary.pdf[PDF][EPS]
Scatter plot of the Cherenkov 2 signal vs. the energy measured in the calorimeter for 18 GeV particle beams. The cuts applied in the analysis are shown (p/K selection). Results using September 2017 TestBeam data.
Contact: Tigran.Mkrtchyan@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2018-002, http://cds.cern.ch/record/2299394 		18_cher2_totEn_pkCutVisualPreliminary.pdf[PDF][EPS]
Distribution of the measured energy for 30 GeV kaons. The Gaussian function fit, performed in the range ±2σ centred on the peak value is shown. The low-energy tail is due to longitudinal energy leakage. The low energy peak is due to muons. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data.
Contact: Tigran.Mkrtchyan@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2018-002, http://cds.cern.ch/record/2299394 		30_Kaons_Fit_Preliminary.pdf[PDF][EPS]
Measured response for pions, kaons and protons as a function of the beam energy. The ratios of the responses obtained using experimental and simulated data are shown. Results using September 2017 TestBeam data. Simulated results obtained using the Geant 4.10.1 (FTFP_BERT_ATL physics list).
Contact: Tigran.Mkrtchyan@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2018-002, http://cds.cern.ch/record/2299394 		MeanDataGeVPreliminary.pdf[PDF][EPS]
Measured width for pions, kaons and protons as a function of the beam energy. The ratios of the resolutions obtained using experimental and simulated are shown. Simulated results obtained using the Geant 4.10.1 (FTFP_BERT_ATL physics list).
Contact: Tigran.Mkrtchyan@cern.ch
References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2018-002, http://cds.cern.ch/record/2299394 		SigmaDataGeVPreliminary.pdf[PDF][EPS]

Comparison with Monte Carlo simulations

Visible energy in TileCal
Mean value of the energy released in TileCal by a pion beam at η=-0.35 of several energies. The mean is extracted with a 2 sigma Gaussian fit of the energy distribution. Experimental data and Monte Carlo simulations are calibrated to the electromagnetic scale using a sample of 20 GeV electrons. The exact beam composition is reproduced in the Monte Carlo samples.
Data obtained with TileCal standalone test-beam 2002 setup: a three layers stack with a prototype barrel module a production barrel module and two extended barrel modules on top.
Contact: cascella@pi.infn.it
Reference: Atlas.TileCal Performance meeting (12/2/09) ATL-COM-TILECAL-2009-001 		visible_energy.gif
Longitudinal shower shape
Fraction of the total energy released by a pion beam in each longitudinal sample of the Tile calorimeter. The first section (Sample A), of about 1.4 interaction length, samples the beginning of the shower development, the second (Sample BC) is the longest section (4λ) and contains the bulk of the hadronic shower. The last sample (Sample D) measures the energy in the tail of the shower.
Data obtained with TileCal standalone test-beam 2002 setup: a three layers stack with a prototype barrel module a production barrel module and two extended barrel modules on top. Pions impinging at η=-0.35.
Contact: cascella@pi.infn.it
Reference: Atlas.TileCal Performance meeting (12/2/09) ATL-COM-TILECAL-2009-001 		longitudinal_shape.gif
Lateral shower shape
Lateral profile of the hadronic shower from a pion beam in TileCal. Ecore is the energy released in the projective tower hit by the pion beam (0.1x0.1 in ΔηxΔφ). The energy in the volume around this tower measures the size of the shower halo (Ehalo).
Data obtained with TileCal standalone test-beam 2002 setup: a three layers stack with a prototype barrel module a production barrel module and two extended barrel modules on top. Pions impinging at η=-0.35.
Contact: cascella@pi.infn.it
Reference: Atlas.TileCal Performance meeting (12/2/09) ATL-COM-TILECAL-2009-001 		lateral_shape.gif

Sampling fraction

Reverse value of the sampling fraction (1/SF) as the function of pseudo-rapidity. The quantity is given by the ratio of beam energy over visible energy. The values are constant over a large -region. The increase of 1/SF at small can be qualitatively explained by the periodic iron/scintillator structure of the TileCal. In the simulation the energy deposited by particles in a cell at the EM scale in TileCal is calculated as the energy released in the scintillators multiplied by the factor determined at η=0.35 consistently with the EM scale used for the data obtained with electrons at Test Beams.
Contact: Jana.Faltova@cern.ch
References: 		sampling_fraction_vsEta_2.gif
Determinations of ratio of the incident electron energy E over the simulated visible energy deposited in the cells 1/SF without and with the introduction of the U-shape in the Test Beams MC. The systematic error Δ_?imp corresponds to the uncertainty on the impact point of the electrons on the cell of about 20 mm in y at Test Beams. The diff erence of the values of 1/SF obtained using two diff erent methods Δ_?meth is smaller than 0.1%. The considered systematic errors do not a ffect the determinations of 1/SF without U-shape simulation.
Contact: Archil.Durglishvili@cern.ch and Claudio.Santoni@cern.ch
References: 		Ushape_SF_Table.png

Beam Elements

The linear fit to the 3 test pulses calibrating the drift time of particles to their position on the wire chamber number 1 in the horizontal (left) and vertical (scales). Data is taken from the September 2017 test beam campaign.
Contact: douglas.michael.schaefer@cern.ch
References: 		calibration_fit_bc_1_runs_lu_613931_c_613930_rd_613932.pdf[PDF]
The linear fit to the 3 test pulses calibrating the drift time of particles to their position on the wire chamber number 2 in the horizontal (left) and vertical (scales). Data is taken from the September 2017 test beam campaign.
Contact: douglas.michael.schaefer@cern.ch
References: 		calibration_fit_bc_2_runs_lu_614670_c_614667_rd_614668.pdf[PDF]
ADC counts for a scintillator in a 20 GeV hadron beam. Data is taken from the September 2017 test beam campaign. The right most bin includes overflow counts.
Contact: douglas.michael.schaefer@cern.ch
References: 		s1.pdf[PDF][EPS]
ADC counts for a scintillator in a 20 GeV hadron beam. Data is taken from the September 2017 test beam campaign. The right most bin includes overflow counts.
Contact: douglas.michael.schaefer@cern.ch
References: 		s2.pdf[PDF][EPS]
Cherenkov detector digitized through an ADC in a 20 GeV Hadron beam. The gas was CO2 at a pressure of 0.4 bars. Data is taken from the September 2017 test beam campaign. The right most bin includes overflow counts.
Contact: douglas.michael.schaefer@cern.ch
References: 		c1.pdf[PDF][EPS]
Cherenkov detector digitized through an ADC in a 20 GeV Hadron beam. The gas was CO2 at a pressure of 1.4 bars. Data is taken from the September 2017 test beam campaign. The right most bin includes overflow counts.
Contact: douglas.michael.schaefer@cern.ch
References: 		c2.pdf[PDF][EPS]
Cherenkov detector digitized through an ADC in a 20 GeV Hadron beam. The gas was He at a pressure of 0.4 bars. Data is taken from the September 2017 test beam campaign. The right most bin includes overflow counts.
Contact: douglas.michael.schaefer@cern.ch
References: 		c3.pdf[PDF][EPS]
Cherenkov detector using CO2 gas at 1.4 bars is digitized through an ADC in a 20 GeV Hadron beam shown versus another Cherenkov detector filled with He gas at 0.4 bars. Data is taken from the September 2017 test beam campaign.
Contact: douglas.michael.schaefer@cern.ch
References: 		c1vsc3.pdf[PDF][EPS]
Cherenkov detector using CO2 gas at 1.4 bars is digitized through an ADC in a 20 GeV Hadron beam shown versus the total energy reconstructed in the demonstrator of the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter in pC. The PMTs are biased at 5 times higher than normal gain. Data is taken from the September 2017 test beam campaign.
Contact: douglas.michael.schaefer@cern.ch
References: 		cher3En.pdf[PDF][EPS]
The reconstructed energy in an electron beam for the demonstrator and the legacy system. Data is taken from the 2015 test beam campaign.
Contact: douglas.michael.schaefer@cern.ch
References: 		demoEn.pdf[PDF]

Major updates:
-- PawelKlimek - 2016-08-16
-- TamarZakareishvili - 06 Feb 2017

Responsible: PawelKlimek
Subject: public

Attachments Attachments
Topic attachments
I Attachment History Action Size Date Who Comment
PNGpng 0NoLog.png r1 manage 20.2 K 2017-02-06 - 18:31 TamarZakareishvili  
Unknown file formateps 18_cher1_totEnVisualPreliminary.eps r1 manage 416.5 K 2018-01-16 - 17:21 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf 18_cher1_totEnVisualPreliminary.pdf r1 manage 52.5 K 2018-01-16 - 17:23 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng 18_cher1_totEnVisualPreliminary.png r1 manage 207.2 K 2018-01-16 - 17:21 TamarZakareishvili  
Unknown file formateps 18_cher2_totEn_epionCutVisualPreliminary.eps r1 manage 338.2 K 2018-01-16 - 17:21 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf 18_cher2_totEn_epionCutVisualPreliminary.pdf r1 manage 50.0 K 2018-01-16 - 17:23 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng 18_cher2_totEn_epionCutVisualPreliminary.png r1 manage 209.8 K 2018-01-16 - 17:21 TamarZakareishvili  
Unknown file formateps 18_cher2_totEn_pkCutVisualPreliminary.eps r1 manage 284.2 K 2018-01-16 - 17:21 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf 18_cher2_totEn_pkCutVisualPreliminary.pdf r1 manage 44.9 K 2018-01-16 - 17:23 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng 18_cher2_totEn_pkCutVisualPreliminary.png r1 manage 217.2 K 2018-01-16 - 17:21 TamarZakareishvili  
Unknown file formateps 18_cher3_totEnVisualPreliminary.eps r1 manage 236.9 K 2018-01-16 - 17:21 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf 18_cher3_totEnVisualPreliminary.pdf r1 manage 38.3 K 2018-01-16 - 17:23 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng 18_cher3_totEnVisualPreliminary.png r1 manage 168.9 K 2018-01-16 - 17:23 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng 18gev_kaons-1.png r1 manage 61.1 K 2020-02-10 - 18:21 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf 18gev_kaons.pdf r1 manage 18.1 K 2020-02-10 - 18:21 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng 18gev_protons-1.png r1 manage 60.1 K 2020-02-10 - 18:21 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf 18gev_protons.pdf r1 manage 17.4 K 2020-02-10 - 18:21 TamarZakareishvili  
Unknown file formateps 30_Kaons_Fit_Preliminary.eps r1 manage 73.4 K 2018-01-16 - 17:21 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf 30_Kaons_Fit_Preliminary.pdf r1 manage 15.5 K 2018-01-16 - 17:23 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng 30_Kaons_Fit_Preliminary.png r1 manage 266.4 K 2018-01-16 - 17:23 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng A10.png r1 manage 15.9 K 2017-02-06 - 18:31 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng A2_6.png r1 manage 26.4 K 2017-02-06 - 19:16 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng A2_9.png r1 manage 27.9 K 2017-02-06 - 19:16 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng A2resized.png r1 manage 29.8 K 2017-02-06 - 19:16 TamarZakareishvili  
Unknown file formateps A8_data_MC_fit_NoPeak.eps r1 manage 10.9 K 2018-01-16 - 17:28 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf A8_data_MC_fit_NoPeak.pdf r1 manage 17.1 K 2018-01-16 - 17:28 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng A8_data_MC_fit_NoPeak.png r1 manage 13.2 K 2018-01-16 - 17:28 TamarZakareishvili  
Unknown file formateps Alayer_dEdl_MC_ratio.eps r1 manage 11.1 K 2018-01-16 - 17:25 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf Alayer_dEdl_MC_ratio.pdf r1 manage 13.7 K 2018-01-16 - 17:25 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng Alayer_dEdl_MC_ratio.png r1 manage 6.2 K 2018-01-16 - 17:25 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng BC23.png r1 manage 25.7 K 2017-02-06 - 19:16 TamarZakareishvili  
Unknown file formateps BClayer_dEdl_MC_ratio.eps r1 manage 11.0 K 2018-01-16 - 17:25 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf BClayer_dEdl_MC_ratio.pdf r1 manage 13.6 K 2018-01-16 - 17:25 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng BClayer_dEdl_MC_ratio.png r1 manage 6.3 K 2018-01-16 - 17:25 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng Cher1vsCher3_18gevLine-1.png r1 manage 176.9 K 2020-02-10 - 17:40 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf Cher1vsCher3_18gevLine.pdf r1 manage 171.0 K 2020-02-10 - 17:40 TamarZakareishvili  
Unknown file formateps ClongvsCtot50_TDR.eps r1 manage 588.2 K 2018-01-17 - 09:39 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf ClongvsCtot50_TDR.pdf r1 manage 51.9 K 2018-01-17 - 09:39 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng ClongvsCtot50_TDR.png r1 manage 22.6 K 2018-01-17 - 09:39 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng D1.png r1 manage 26.9 K 2017-02-06 - 19:16 TamarZakareishvili  
Unknown file formateps Dlayer_dEdl_MC_ratio.eps r1 manage 10.2 K 2018-01-16 - 17:25 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf Dlayer_dEdl_MC_ratio.pdf r1 manage 13.3 K 2018-01-16 - 17:25 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng Dlayer_dEdl_MC_ratio.png r1 manage 5.6 K 2018-01-16 - 17:25 TamarZakareishvili  
Unknown file formateps EVSTile.eps r1 manage 13.3 K 2019-01-22 - 10:24 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf EVSTile.pdf r1 manage 33.3 K 2019-01-22 - 10:30 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng EVSTile.png r1 manage 71.8 K 2019-01-22 - 10:30 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng EnoCut18gev-1.png r1 manage 50.8 K 2020-02-10 - 17:29 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf EnoCut18gev.pdf r1 manage 24.2 K 2020-02-10 - 17:08 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng Eraw_elec_18gev-1.png r1 manage 64.8 K 2020-02-10 - 18:15 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf Eraw_elec_18gev.pdf r1 manage 32.7 K 2020-02-10 - 17:27 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng Eraw_subt_18gev-1.png r1 manage 68.9 K 2020-02-10 - 18:21 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf Eraw_subt_18gev.pdf r1 manage 19.3 K 2020-02-10 - 18:21 TamarZakareishvili  
Unknown file formateps EtotClong_TDR.eps r1 manage 68.7 K 2018-01-16 - 17:24 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf EtotClong_TDR.pdf r1 manage 16.6 K 2018-01-16 - 17:24 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng EtotClong_TDR.png r1 manage 20.8 K 2018-01-16 - 17:24 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng EvsCher2_18gev-1.png r1 manage 126.1 K 2020-02-10 - 18:12 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf EvsCher2_18gev.pdf r1 manage 56.3 K 2020-02-10 - 18:12 TamarZakareishvili  
Unknown file formateps Linearity2_TDR.eps r1 manage 45.0 K 2018-01-16 - 17:24 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf Linearity2_TDR.pdf r1 manage 13.7 K 2018-01-16 - 17:24 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng Linearity2_TDR.png r1 manage 12.1 K 2018-01-16 - 17:24 TamarZakareishvili  
Unknown file formateps MeanDataGeVPreliminary.eps r1 manage 69.4 K 2018-01-16 - 17:21 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf MeanDataGeVPreliminary.pdf r1 manage 15.9 K 2018-01-16 - 17:23 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng MeanDataGeVPreliminary.png r1 manage 144.6 K 2018-01-16 - 17:23 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf R_ratio.pdf r1 manage 35.0 K 2019-01-22 - 10:40 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng R_ratio.png r1 manage 41.3 K 2019-01-22 - 10:40 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng Range.png r1 manage 25.9 K 2017-02-06 - 19:16 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng Ratio_K_Fh-1.png r1 manage 65.2 K 2020-02-10 - 19:00 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf Ratio_K_Fh.pdf r1 manage 17.3 K 2020-02-10 - 17:27 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng Ratio_Reraw-1.png r1 manage 64.1 K 2020-02-10 - 18:56 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf Ratio_Reraw.pdf r1 manage 15.2 K 2020-02-10 - 17:27 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng Ratio_Rsigma-1.png r1 manage 56.4 K 2020-02-10 - 18:56 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf Ratio_Rsigma.pdf r1 manage 14.9 K 2020-02-10 - 17:27 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng Ratio_p_Fh-1.png r1 manage 63.8 K 2020-02-10 - 19:00 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf Ratio_p_Fh.pdf r1 manage 17.3 K 2020-02-10 - 17:27 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng RerawKaon-1.png r1 manage 74.1 K 2020-02-10 - 18:48 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf RerawKaon.pdf r1 manage 18.6 K 2020-02-10 - 18:48 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng RerawPion-1.png r1 manage 76.4 K 2020-02-10 - 18:48 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf RerawPion.pdf r1 manage 19.3 K 2020-02-10 - 18:48 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng RerawProton-1.png r1 manage 73.5 K 2020-02-10 - 18:48 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf RerawProton.pdf r1 manage 18.4 K 2020-02-10 - 17:27 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng RsigmaKaon-1.png r1 manage 75.3 K 2020-02-10 - 18:51 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf RsigmaKaon.pdf r1 manage 19.2 K 2020-02-10 - 17:27 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng RsigmaPion-1.png r1 manage 83.1 K 2020-02-10 - 18:51 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf RsigmaPion.pdf r1 manage 19.2 K 2020-02-10 - 17:27 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng RsigmaProton-1.png r1 manage 71.9 K 2020-02-10 - 18:51 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf RsigmaProton.pdf r1 manage 18.9 K 2020-02-10 - 17:27 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng Scat_clongctot_data_18gev-1.png r1 manage 184.4 K 2020-02-10 - 17:44 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf Scat_clongctot_data_18gev.pdf r1 manage 73.3 K 2020-02-10 - 17:27 TamarZakareishvili  
Unknown file formateps SigmaDataGeVPreliminary.eps r1 manage 73.1 K 2018-01-16 - 17:21 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf SigmaDataGeVPreliminary.pdf r1 manage 15.8 K 2018-01-16 - 17:23 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng SigmaDataGeVPreliminary.png r1 manage 142.4 K 2018-01-16 - 17:23 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf T10_scatter_new.pdf r1 manage 32.2 K 2019-01-22 - 10:40 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng T10_scatter_new.png r1 manage 103.8 K 2019-01-22 - 10:40 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf T2_scatter_new.pdf r1 manage 28.5 K 2019-01-22 - 10:40 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng T2_scatter_new.png r1 manage 86.1 K 2019-01-22 - 10:40 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf T6_scatter_new.pdf r1 manage 28.6 K 2019-01-22 - 10:40 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng T6_scatter_new.png r1 manage 88.2 K 2019-01-22 - 10:40 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng TotE.png r1 manage 27.0 K 2017-02-06 - 19:16 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf U-shape.pdf r1 manage 45.5 K 2019-01-22 - 10:40 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng U-shape.png r1 manage 175.2 K 2019-01-22 - 10:40 TamarZakareishvili  
Unknown file formateps U-shape_1.eps r1 manage 34.9 K 2019-01-22 - 11:10 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf U-shape_1.pdf r1 manage 26.5 K 2019-01-22 - 11:10 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng U-shape_1.png r1 manage 34.4 K 2019-01-22 - 11:10 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng Ushape_SF_Table.png r1 manage 14.6 K 2016-08-16 - 17:00 PawelKlimek  
Unknown file formateps c1.eps r1 manage 11.0 K 2018-01-16 - 12:51 DougSchaefer  
PDFpdf c1.pdf r1 manage 15.3 K 2018-01-16 - 12:21 DougSchaefer  
PNGpng c1.png r1 manage 75.3 K 2018-01-16 - 12:31 DougSchaefer  
Unknown file formateps c1vsc3.eps r1 manage 30.1 K 2018-01-16 - 12:51 DougSchaefer  
PDFpdf c1vsc3.pdf r1 manage 18.6 K 2018-01-16 - 12:21 DougSchaefer  
PNGpng c1vsc3.png r1 manage 112.8 K 2018-01-16 - 12:31 DougSchaefer  
Unknown file formateps c2.eps r1 manage 10.9 K 2018-01-16 - 12:51 DougSchaefer  
PDFpdf c2.pdf r1 manage 15.3 K 2018-01-16 - 12:21 DougSchaefer  
PNGpng c2.png r1 manage 74.4 K 2018-01-16 - 12:31 DougSchaefer  
Unknown file formateps c3.eps r1 manage 11.0 K 2018-01-16 - 12:51 DougSchaefer  
PDFpdf c3.pdf r1 manage 15.4 K 2018-01-16 - 12:21 DougSchaefer  
PNGpng c3.png r1 manage 75.1 K 2018-01-16 - 12:31 DougSchaefer  
PNGpng c_A7_31.png r1 manage 22.1 K 2017-02-06 - 14:11 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng c_grdEdX3rms.png r1 manage 17.9 K 2017-02-06 - 18:31 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng c_h1.png r1 manage 19.9 K 2017-02-06 - 18:31 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng c_signal_of_A10_48_and_A10_47.png r1 manage 15.5 K 2017-02-06 - 18:31 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng c_timing_A7_31.png r1 manage 16.2 K 2017-02-06 - 18:24 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng c_withAllCutsA2_6NoLog.png r1 manage 19.4 K 2017-02-06 - 18:31 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf calibration_fit_bc_1_runs_lu_613931_c_613930_rd_613932.pdf r1 manage 25.0 K 2018-01-16 - 12:21 DougSchaefer  
PNGpng calibration_fit_bc_1_runs_lu_613931_c_613930_rd_613932.png r1 manage 154.6 K 2018-01-16 - 12:31 DougSchaefer  
PDFpdf calibration_fit_bc_2_runs_lu_614670_c_614667_rd_614668.pdf r1 manage 25.2 K 2018-01-16 - 12:21 DougSchaefer  
PNGpng calibration_fit_bc_2_runs_lu_614670_c_614667_rd_614668.png r1 manage 155.9 K 2018-01-16 - 12:31 DougSchaefer  
PNGpng charge.png r1 manage 39.9 K 2016-08-16 - 16:59 PawelKlimek  
Unknown file formateps cher3En.eps r1 manage 36.1 K 2018-01-16 - 12:51 DougSchaefer  
PDFpdf cher3En.pdf r1 manage 19.6 K 2018-01-16 - 12:21 DougSchaefer  
PNGpng cher3En.png r1 manage 117.9 K 2018-01-16 - 12:31 DougSchaefer  
PDFpdf demoEn.pdf r1 manage 231.6 K 2018-01-16 - 12:21 DougSchaefer  
PNGpng demoEn.png r1 manage 263.7 K 2018-01-16 - 12:31 DougSchaefer  
GIFgif lateral_shape.gif r1 manage 21.5 K 2016-08-16 - 16:59 PawelKlimek  
GIFgif longitudinal_shape.gif r1 manage 16.2 K 2016-08-16 - 16:59 PawelKlimek  
PNGpng mf_calib.png r1 manage 11.6 K 2016-08-16 - 16:59 PawelKlimek  
PNGpng mlfit3gaus_ctot6_18gev-1.png r1 manage 95.6 K 2020-02-10 - 18:10 TamarZakareishvili  
PDFpdf mlfit3gaus_ctot6_18gev.pdf r1 manage 24.7 K 2020-02-10 - 18:10 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng mu_20_samp-3.png r1 manage 50.9 K 2016-08-16 - 16:59 PawelKlimek  
PNGpng muon_dedx.png r1 manage 5.0 K 2016-08-16 - 16:59 PawelKlimek  
PNGpng muon_eta_data_mc.png r1 manage 48.0 K 2016-08-16 - 16:59 PawelKlimek  
PNGpng muon_response_dcell.png r1 manage 17.2 K 2016-08-16 - 16:59 PawelKlimek  
PNGpng muon_response_tower.png r1 manage 16.8 K 2016-08-16 - 16:59 PawelKlimek  
PNGpng noisefit.png r1 manage 51.3 K 2016-08-16 - 16:59 PawelKlimek  
GIFgif pionFit.gif r1 manage 12.9 K 2016-08-16 - 17:00 PawelKlimek  
PDFpdf pion_LateralSpread.pdf r1 manage 16.2 K 2017-03-09 - 18:05 DengfengZhang  
PNGpng pion_LateralSpread.png r1 manage 17.9 K 2017-03-09 - 18:07 DengfengZhang  
PDFpdf pion_LongitudinalProfile_100GeV.pdf r1 manage 19.6 K 2017-03-09 - 18:05 DengfengZhang  
PNGpng pion_LongitudinalProfile_100GeV.png r1 manage 21.2 K 2017-03-09 - 18:07 DengfengZhang  
PDFpdf pion_LongitudinalProfile_180GeV.pdf r1 manage 20.0 K 2017-03-09 - 18:05 DengfengZhang  
PNGpng pion_LongitudinalProfile_180GeV.png r1 manage 21.9 K 2017-03-09 - 18:07 DengfengZhang  
PDFpdf pion_LongitudinalProfile_20GeV.pdf r1 manage 18.2 K 2017-03-09 - 18:05 DengfengZhang  
PNGpng pion_LongitudinalProfile_20GeV.png r1 manage 19.6 K 2017-03-09 - 18:07 DengfengZhang  
PDFpdf pion_LongitudinalProfile_50GeV.pdf r1 manage 18.8 K 2017-03-09 - 18:05 DengfengZhang  
PNGpng pion_LongitudinalProfile_50GeV.png r1 manage 20.5 K 2017-03-09 - 18:07 DengfengZhang  
GIFgif pion_QGSP_BERT_G492_Data.gif r1 manage 12.2 K 2016-08-16 - 17:00 PawelKlimek  
PDFpdf pion_Resolution.pdf r1 manage 17.0 K 2017-03-09 - 18:05 DengfengZhang  
PNGpng pion_Resolution.png r1 manage 18.3 K 2017-03-09 - 18:07 DengfengZhang  
PDFpdf pion_Response.pdf r1 manage 16.5 K 2017-03-09 - 18:05 DengfengZhang  
PNGpng pion_Response.png r1 manage 20.2 K 2017-03-09 - 18:07 DengfengZhang  
PNGpng pion_lin_fits_aver_1fixed_nomc_new1.png r1 manage 17.1 K 2016-08-16 - 17:00 PawelKlimek  
PNGpng pion_linearity_no_corr_at_all_label.png r1 manage 13.1 K 2016-08-16 - 17:00 PawelKlimek  
PNGpng pion_resolution_new_realbeam.png r1 manage 17.9 K 2016-08-16 - 17:00 PawelKlimek  
GIFgif protonFit.gif r1 manage 12.9 K 2016-08-16 - 17:06 PawelKlimek  
PDFpdf proton_LateralSpread.pdf r1 manage 15.7 K 2017-03-09 - 18:08 DengfengZhang  
PNGpng proton_LateralSpread.png r1 manage 17.0 K 2017-03-09 - 18:07 DengfengZhang  
PDFpdf proton_LongitudinalProfile_100GeV.pdf r1 manage 19.1 K 2017-03-09 - 18:08 DengfengZhang  
PNGpng proton_LongitudinalProfile_100GeV.png r1 manage 21.1 K 2017-03-09 - 18:07 DengfengZhang  
PDFpdf proton_LongitudinalProfile_180GeV.pdf r1 manage 19.5 K 2017-03-09 - 18:08 DengfengZhang  
PNGpng proton_LongitudinalProfile_180GeV.png r1 manage 21.5 K 2017-03-09 - 18:07 DengfengZhang  
PDFpdf proton_LongitudinalProfile_50GeV.pdf r1 manage 18.7 K 2017-03-09 - 18:08 DengfengZhang  
PNGpng proton_LongitudinalProfile_50GeV.png r1 manage 20.2 K 2017-03-09 - 18:07 DengfengZhang  
GIFgif proton_QGSP_BERT_G492_Data.gif r1 manage 11.6 K 2016-08-16 - 17:00 PawelKlimek  
PDFpdf proton_Resolution.pdf r1 manage 16.6 K 2017-03-09 - 18:08 DengfengZhang  
PNGpng proton_Resolution.png r1 manage 18.2 K 2017-03-09 - 18:12 DengfengZhang  
PDFpdf proton_Response.pdf r1 manage 15.8 K 2017-03-09 - 18:08 DengfengZhang  
PNGpng proton_Response.png r1 manage 18.7 K 2017-03-09 - 18:12 DengfengZhang  
PNGpng resSigmaOverPeak1.png r1 manage 30.8 K 2016-08-16 - 17:00 PawelKlimek  
PNGpng roctb.png r1 manage 100.8 K 2016-08-16 - 17:00 PawelKlimek  
Unknown file formateps s1.eps r1 manage 10.2 K 2018-01-16 - 12:51 DougSchaefer  
PDFpdf s1.pdf r1 manage 15.1 K 2018-01-16 - 12:21 DougSchaefer  
PNGpng s1.png r1 manage 70.9 K 2018-01-16 - 12:31 DougSchaefer  
Unknown file formateps s2.eps r1 manage 11.3 K 2018-01-16 - 12:51 DougSchaefer  
PDFpdf s2.pdf r1 manage 15.5 K 2018-01-16 - 12:21 DougSchaefer  
PNGpng s2.png r1 manage 85.1 K 2018-01-16 - 12:31 DougSchaefer  
GIFgif sampling_fraction_vsEta_2.gif r1 manage 9.8 K 2016-08-16 - 17:00 PawelKlimek  
PNGpng snr.png r1 manage 37.0 K 2016-08-16 - 17:00 PawelKlimek  
PNGpng table_muon_edep.png r1 manage 118.1 K 2016-08-16 - 17:04 PawelKlimek  
PNGpng totalEBC.png r1 manage 25.0 K 2017-02-06 - 19:16 TamarZakareishvili  
PNGpng unif_20deg_new.png r1 manage 26.4 K 2016-08-16 - 17:00 PawelKlimek  
GIFgif visible_energy.gif r1 manage 14.7 K 2016-08-16 - 17:00 PawelKlimek  
PNGpng white.png r1 manage 69.1 K 2016-08-16 - 17:00 PawelKlimek  
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r11 < r10 < r9 < r8 < r7 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r11 - 2020-02-10 - TamarZakareishvili
 
    • Cern Search Icon Cern Search
    • TWiki Search Icon TWiki Search
    • Google Search Icon Google Search

    Atlas All webs login

This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright &© 2008-2020 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