ApprovedPlotsTileTestBeamResults

Introduction
Test beam results

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	[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	[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	[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	[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	[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	[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	[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	[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	[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	[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	[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	[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	[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	[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	[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	[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
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	[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	[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	[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	[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	[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	[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	[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	[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	[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	[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
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
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
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
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 3FirstSampleRMS. Contact:* `Tamar.Zakareishvili@cern.ch` References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2242000
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 3FirstSampleRMS. Contact:* `Tamar.Zakareishvili@cern.ch` References: ATL-COM-TILECAL-2017-003, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2242000
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
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
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
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
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
The total ATLAS Tile calorimeter response to muons at pseudorapidity Ã‚Â±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:
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 Ã‚Â±0.05. The peak response is defined as the most probable value of the measured energy loss spectrum acquired from the LandauÃƒ—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:*
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Hadrons
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	[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	[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	[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	[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	[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	[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	[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
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
Lateral shower shape Lateral profile of the hadronic shower from a pion beam in TileCal. E_core 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 (E_halo). 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
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 difference of the values of 1/SF obtained using two different methods Δ_?meth is smaller than 0.1%. The considered systematic errors do not affect the determinations of 1/SF without U-shape simulation. Contact: `Archil.Durglishvili@cern.ch` and `Claudio.Santoni@cern.ch` References:
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:	[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:	[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:	[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:	[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:	[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:	[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:	[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:	[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:	[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:	[PDF]

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

Responsible: PawelKlimek
Subject: public

Attachments

Topic attachments
I	Attachment	History	Action	Size	Date	Who
png	0NoLog.png	r1	manage	20.2 K	2017-02-06 - 18:31	TamarZakareishvili
eps	18_cher1_totEnVisualPreliminary.eps	r1	manage	416.5 K	2018-01-16 - 17:21	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	18_cher1_totEnVisualPreliminary.pdf	r1	manage	52.5 K	2018-01-16 - 17:23	TamarZakareishvili
png	18_cher1_totEnVisualPreliminary.png	r1	manage	207.2 K	2018-01-16 - 17:21	TamarZakareishvili
eps	18_cher2_totEn_epionCutVisualPreliminary.eps	r1	manage	338.2 K	2018-01-16 - 17:21	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	18_cher2_totEn_epionCutVisualPreliminary.pdf	r1	manage	50.0 K	2018-01-16 - 17:23	TamarZakareishvili
png	18_cher2_totEn_epionCutVisualPreliminary.png	r1	manage	209.8 K	2018-01-16 - 17:21	TamarZakareishvili
eps	18_cher2_totEn_pkCutVisualPreliminary.eps	r1	manage	284.2 K	2018-01-16 - 17:21	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	18_cher2_totEn_pkCutVisualPreliminary.pdf	r1	manage	44.9 K	2018-01-16 - 17:23	TamarZakareishvili
png	18_cher2_totEn_pkCutVisualPreliminary.png	r1	manage	217.2 K	2018-01-16 - 17:21	TamarZakareishvili
eps	18_cher3_totEnVisualPreliminary.eps	r1	manage	236.9 K	2018-01-16 - 17:21	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	18_cher3_totEnVisualPreliminary.pdf	r1	manage	38.3 K	2018-01-16 - 17:23	TamarZakareishvili
png	18_cher3_totEnVisualPreliminary.png	r1	manage	168.9 K	2018-01-16 - 17:23	TamarZakareishvili
eps	30_Kaons_Fit_Preliminary.eps	r1	manage	73.4 K	2018-01-16 - 17:21	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	30_Kaons_Fit_Preliminary.pdf	r1	manage	15.5 K	2018-01-16 - 17:23	TamarZakareishvili
png	30_Kaons_Fit_Preliminary.png	r1	manage	266.4 K	2018-01-16 - 17:23	TamarZakareishvili
png	A10.png	r1	manage	15.9 K	2017-02-06 - 18:31	TamarZakareishvili
png	A2_6.png	r1	manage	26.4 K	2017-02-06 - 19:16	TamarZakareishvili
png	A2_9.png	r1	manage	27.9 K	2017-02-06 - 19:16	TamarZakareishvili
png	A2resized.png	r1	manage	29.8 K	2017-02-06 - 19:16	TamarZakareishvili
eps	A8_data_MC_fit_NoPeak.eps	r1	manage	10.9 K	2018-01-16 - 17:28	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	A8_data_MC_fit_NoPeak.pdf	r1	manage	17.1 K	2018-01-16 - 17:28	TamarZakareishvili
png	A8_data_MC_fit_NoPeak.png	r1	manage	13.2 K	2018-01-16 - 17:28	TamarZakareishvili
eps	Alayer_dEdl_MC_ratio.eps	r1	manage	11.1 K	2018-01-16 - 17:25	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	Alayer_dEdl_MC_ratio.pdf	r1	manage	13.7 K	2018-01-16 - 17:25	TamarZakareishvili
png	Alayer_dEdl_MC_ratio.png	r1	manage	6.2 K	2018-01-16 - 17:25	TamarZakareishvili
png	BC23.png	r1	manage	25.7 K	2017-02-06 - 19:16	TamarZakareishvili
eps	BClayer_dEdl_MC_ratio.eps	r1	manage	11.0 K	2018-01-16 - 17:25	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	BClayer_dEdl_MC_ratio.pdf	r1	manage	13.6 K	2018-01-16 - 17:25	TamarZakareishvili
png	BClayer_dEdl_MC_ratio.png	r1	manage	6.3 K	2018-01-16 - 17:25	TamarZakareishvili
eps	ClongvsCtot50_TDR.eps	r1	manage	588.2 K	2018-01-17 - 09:39	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	ClongvsCtot50_TDR.pdf	r1	manage	51.9 K	2018-01-17 - 09:39	TamarZakareishvili
png	ClongvsCtot50_TDR.png	r1	manage	22.6 K	2018-01-17 - 09:39	TamarZakareishvili
png	D1.png	r1	manage	26.9 K	2017-02-06 - 19:16	TamarZakareishvili
eps	Dlayer_dEdl_MC_ratio.eps	r1	manage	10.2 K	2018-01-16 - 17:25	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	Dlayer_dEdl_MC_ratio.pdf	r1	manage	13.3 K	2018-01-16 - 17:25	TamarZakareishvili
png	Dlayer_dEdl_MC_ratio.png	r1	manage	5.6 K	2018-01-16 - 17:25	TamarZakareishvili
eps	EVSTile.eps	r1	manage	13.3 K	2019-01-22 - 10:24	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	EVSTile.pdf	r1	manage	33.3 K	2019-01-22 - 10:30	TamarZakareishvili
png	EVSTile.png	r1	manage	71.8 K	2019-01-22 - 10:30	TamarZakareishvili
eps	EtotClong_TDR.eps	r1	manage	68.7 K	2018-01-16 - 17:24	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	EtotClong_TDR.pdf	r1	manage	16.6 K	2018-01-16 - 17:24	TamarZakareishvili
png	EtotClong_TDR.png	r1	manage	20.8 K	2018-01-16 - 17:24	TamarZakareishvili
eps	Linearity2_TDR.eps	r1	manage	45.0 K	2018-01-16 - 17:24	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	Linearity2_TDR.pdf	r1	manage	13.7 K	2018-01-16 - 17:24	TamarZakareishvili
png	Linearity2_TDR.png	r1	manage	12.1 K	2018-01-16 - 17:24	TamarZakareishvili
eps	MeanDataGeVPreliminary.eps	r1	manage	69.4 K	2018-01-16 - 17:21	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	MeanDataGeVPreliminary.pdf	r1	manage	15.9 K	2018-01-16 - 17:23	TamarZakareishvili
png	MeanDataGeVPreliminary.png	r1	manage	144.6 K	2018-01-16 - 17:23	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	R_ratio.pdf	r1	manage	35.0 K	2019-01-22 - 10:40	TamarZakareishvili
png	R_ratio.png	r1	manage	41.3 K	2019-01-22 - 10:40	TamarZakareishvili
png	Range.png	r1	manage	25.9 K	2017-02-06 - 19:16	TamarZakareishvili
eps	SigmaDataGeVPreliminary.eps	r1	manage	73.1 K	2018-01-16 - 17:21	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	SigmaDataGeVPreliminary.pdf	r1	manage	15.8 K	2018-01-16 - 17:23	TamarZakareishvili
png	SigmaDataGeVPreliminary.png	r1	manage	142.4 K	2018-01-16 - 17:23	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	T10_scatter_new.pdf	r1	manage	32.2 K	2019-01-22 - 10:40	TamarZakareishvili
png	T10_scatter_new.png	r1	manage	103.8 K	2019-01-22 - 10:40	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	T2_scatter_new.pdf	r1	manage	28.5 K	2019-01-22 - 10:40	TamarZakareishvili
png	T2_scatter_new.png	r1	manage	86.1 K	2019-01-22 - 10:40	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	T6_scatter_new.pdf	r1	manage	28.6 K	2019-01-22 - 10:40	TamarZakareishvili
png	T6_scatter_new.png	r1	manage	88.2 K	2019-01-22 - 10:40	TamarZakareishvili
png	TotE.png	r1	manage	27.0 K	2017-02-06 - 19:16	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	U-shape.pdf	r1	manage	45.5 K	2019-01-22 - 10:40	TamarZakareishvili
png	U-shape.png	r1	manage	175.2 K	2019-01-22 - 10:40	TamarZakareishvili
eps	U-shape_1.eps	r1	manage	34.9 K	2019-01-22 - 11:10	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	U-shape_1.pdf	r1	manage	26.5 K	2019-01-22 - 11:10	TamarZakareishvili
png	U-shape_1.png	r1	manage	34.4 K	2019-01-22 - 11:10	TamarZakareishvili
png	Ushape_SF_Table.png	r1	manage	14.6 K	2016-08-16 - 17:00	PawelKlimek
eps	c1.eps	r1	manage	11.0 K	2018-01-16 - 12:51	DougSchaefer
pdf	c1.pdf	r1	manage	15.3 K	2018-01-16 - 12:21	DougSchaefer
png	c1.png	r1	manage	75.3 K	2018-01-16 - 12:31	DougSchaefer
eps	c1vsc3.eps	r1	manage	30.1 K	2018-01-16 - 12:51	DougSchaefer
pdf	c1vsc3.pdf	r1	manage	18.6 K	2018-01-16 - 12:21	DougSchaefer
png	c1vsc3.png	r1	manage	112.8 K	2018-01-16 - 12:31	DougSchaefer
eps	c2.eps	r1	manage	10.9 K	2018-01-16 - 12:51	DougSchaefer
pdf	c2.pdf	r1	manage	15.3 K	2018-01-16 - 12:21	DougSchaefer
png	c2.png	r1	manage	74.4 K	2018-01-16 - 12:31	DougSchaefer
eps	c3.eps	r1	manage	11.0 K	2018-01-16 - 12:51	DougSchaefer
pdf	c3.pdf	r1	manage	15.4 K	2018-01-16 - 12:21	DougSchaefer
png	c3.png	r1	manage	75.1 K	2018-01-16 - 12:31	DougSchaefer
png	c_A7_31.png	r1	manage	22.1 K	2017-02-06 - 14:11	TamarZakareishvili
png	c_grdEdX3rms.png	r1	manage	17.9 K	2017-02-06 - 18:31	TamarZakareishvili
png	c_h1.png	r1	manage	19.9 K	2017-02-06 - 18:31	TamarZakareishvili
png	c_signal_of_A10_48_and_A10_47.png	r1	manage	15.5 K	2017-02-06 - 18:31	TamarZakareishvili
png	c_timing_A7_31.png	r1	manage	16.2 K	2017-02-06 - 18:24	TamarZakareishvili
png	c_withAllCutsA2_6NoLog.png	r1	manage	19.4 K	2017-02-06 - 18:31	TamarZakareishvili
pdf	calibration_fit_bc_1_runs_lu_613931_c_613930_rd_613932.pdf	r1	manage	25.0 K	2018-01-16 - 12:21	DougSchaefer
png	calibration_fit_bc_1_runs_lu_613931_c_613930_rd_613932.png	r1	manage	154.6 K	2018-01-16 - 12:31	DougSchaefer
pdf	calibration_fit_bc_2_runs_lu_614670_c_614667_rd_614668.pdf	r1	manage	25.2 K	2018-01-16 - 12:21	DougSchaefer
png	calibration_fit_bc_2_runs_lu_614670_c_614667_rd_614668.png	r1	manage	155.9 K	2018-01-16 - 12:31	DougSchaefer
png	charge.png	r1	manage	39.9 K	2016-08-16 - 16:59	PawelKlimek
eps	cher3En.eps	r1	manage	36.1 K	2018-01-16 - 12:51	DougSchaefer
pdf	cher3En.pdf	r1	manage	19.6 K	2018-01-16 - 12:21	DougSchaefer
png	cher3En.png	r1	manage	117.9 K	2018-01-16 - 12:31	DougSchaefer
pdf	demoEn.pdf	r1	manage	231.6 K	2018-01-16 - 12:21	DougSchaefer
png	demoEn.png	r1	manage	263.7 K	2018-01-16 - 12:31	DougSchaefer
gif	lateral_shape.gif	r1	manage	21.5 K	2016-08-16 - 16:59	PawelKlimek
gif	longitudinal_shape.gif	r1	manage	16.2 K	2016-08-16 - 16:59	PawelKlimek
png	mf_calib.png	r1	manage	11.6 K	2016-08-16 - 16:59	PawelKlimek
png	mu_20_samp-3.png	r1	manage	50.9 K	2016-08-16 - 16:59	PawelKlimek
png	muon_dedx.png	r1	manage	5.0 K	2016-08-16 - 16:59	PawelKlimek
png	muon_eta_data_mc.png	r1	manage	48.0 K	2016-08-16 - 16:59	PawelKlimek
png	muon_response_dcell.png	r1	manage	17.2 K	2016-08-16 - 16:59	PawelKlimek
png	muon_response_tower.png	r1	manage	16.8 K	2016-08-16 - 16:59	PawelKlimek
png	noisefit.png	r1	manage	51.3 K	2016-08-16 - 16:59	PawelKlimek
gif	pionFit.gif	r1	manage	12.9 K	2016-08-16 - 17:00	PawelKlimek
pdf	pion_LateralSpread.pdf	r1	manage	16.2 K	2017-03-09 - 18:05	DengfengZhang
png	pion_LateralSpread.png	r1	manage	17.9 K	2017-03-09 - 18:07	DengfengZhang
pdf	pion_LongitudinalProfile_100GeV.pdf	r1	manage	19.6 K	2017-03-09 - 18:05	DengfengZhang
png	pion_LongitudinalProfile_100GeV.png	r1	manage	21.2 K	2017-03-09 - 18:07	DengfengZhang
pdf	pion_LongitudinalProfile_180GeV.pdf	r1	manage	20.0 K	2017-03-09 - 18:05	DengfengZhang
png	pion_LongitudinalProfile_180GeV.png	r1	manage	21.9 K	2017-03-09 - 18:07	DengfengZhang
pdf	pion_LongitudinalProfile_20GeV.pdf	r1	manage	18.2 K	2017-03-09 - 18:05	DengfengZhang
png	pion_LongitudinalProfile_20GeV.png	r1	manage	19.6 K	2017-03-09 - 18:07	DengfengZhang
pdf	pion_LongitudinalProfile_50GeV.pdf	r1	manage	18.8 K	2017-03-09 - 18:05	DengfengZhang
png	pion_LongitudinalProfile_50GeV.png	r1	manage	20.5 K	2017-03-09 - 18:07	DengfengZhang
gif	pion_QGSP_BERT_G492_Data.gif	r1	manage	12.2 K	2016-08-16 - 17:00	PawelKlimek
pdf	pion_Resolution.pdf	r1	manage	17.0 K	2017-03-09 - 18:05	DengfengZhang
png	pion_Resolution.png	r1	manage	18.3 K	2017-03-09 - 18:07	DengfengZhang
pdf	pion_Response.pdf	r1	manage	16.5 K	2017-03-09 - 18:05	DengfengZhang
png	pion_Response.png	r1	manage	20.2 K	2017-03-09 - 18:07	DengfengZhang
png	pion_lin_fits_aver_1fixed_nomc_new1.png	r1	manage	17.1 K	2016-08-16 - 17:00	PawelKlimek
png	pion_linearity_no_corr_at_all_label.png	r1	manage	13.1 K	2016-08-16 - 17:00	PawelKlimek
png	pion_resolution_new_realbeam.png	r1	manage	17.9 K	2016-08-16 - 17:00	PawelKlimek
gif	protonFit.gif	r1	manage	12.9 K	2016-08-16 - 17:06	PawelKlimek
pdf	proton_LateralSpread.pdf	r1	manage	15.7 K	2017-03-09 - 18:08	DengfengZhang
png	proton_LateralSpread.png	r1	manage	17.0 K	2017-03-09 - 18:07	DengfengZhang
pdf	proton_LongitudinalProfile_100GeV.pdf	r1	manage	19.1 K	2017-03-09 - 18:08	DengfengZhang
png	proton_LongitudinalProfile_100GeV.png	r1	manage	21.1 K	2017-03-09 - 18:07	DengfengZhang
pdf	proton_LongitudinalProfile_180GeV.pdf	r1	manage	19.5 K	2017-03-09 - 18:08	DengfengZhang
png	proton_LongitudinalProfile_180GeV.png	r1	manage	21.5 K	2017-03-09 - 18:07	DengfengZhang
pdf	proton_LongitudinalProfile_50GeV.pdf	r1	manage	18.7 K	2017-03-09 - 18:08	DengfengZhang
png	proton_LongitudinalProfile_50GeV.png	r1	manage	20.2 K	2017-03-09 - 18:07	DengfengZhang
gif	proton_QGSP_BERT_G492_Data.gif	r1	manage	11.6 K	2016-08-16 - 17:00	PawelKlimek
pdf	proton_Resolution.pdf	r1	manage	16.6 K	2017-03-09 - 18:08	DengfengZhang
png	proton_Resolution.png	r1	manage	18.2 K	2017-03-09 - 18:12	DengfengZhang
pdf	proton_Response.pdf	r1	manage	15.8 K	2017-03-09 - 18:08	DengfengZhang
png	proton_Response.png	r1	manage	18.7 K	2017-03-09 - 18:12	DengfengZhang
png	resSigmaOverPeak1.png	r1	manage	30.8 K	2016-08-16 - 17:00	PawelKlimek
png	roctb.png	r1	manage	100.8 K	2016-08-16 - 17:00	PawelKlimek
eps	s1.eps	r1	manage	10.2 K	2018-01-16 - 12:51	DougSchaefer
pdf	s1.pdf	r1	manage	15.1 K	2018-01-16 - 12:21	DougSchaefer
png	s1.png	r1	manage	70.9 K	2018-01-16 - 12:31	DougSchaefer
eps	s2.eps	r1	manage	11.3 K	2018-01-16 - 12:51	DougSchaefer
pdf	s2.pdf	r1	manage	15.5 K	2018-01-16 - 12:21	DougSchaefer
png	s2.png	r1	manage	85.1 K	2018-01-16 - 12:31	DougSchaefer
gif	sampling_fraction_vsEta_2.gif	r1	manage	9.8 K	2016-08-16 - 17:00	PawelKlimek
png	snr.png	r1	manage	37.0 K	2016-08-16 - 17:00	PawelKlimek
png	table_muon_edep.png	r1	manage	118.1 K	2016-08-16 - 17:04	PawelKlimek
png	totalEBC.png	r1	manage	25.0 K	2017-02-06 - 19:16	TamarZakareishvili
png	unif_20deg_new.png	r1	manage	26.4 K	2016-08-16 - 17:00	PawelKlimek
gif	visible_energy.gif	r1	manage	14.7 K	2016-08-16 - 17:00	PawelKlimek
png	white.png	r1	manage	69.1 K	2016-08-16 - 17:00	PawelKlimek