AtlasPublicTopicHeader.png

Public Pixel Tracker Plots for Collision Data

Introduction

The Pixel detector collision plots below are approved to be shown by ATLAS speakers at conferences and similar events. Procedure to approve plots is illustrated here.

  • Figures come mainly from collisions data taking.
  • Plots related to the alignment of the Pixel detector and the entire inner tracking detector can be found here
  • Other Publications on the Pixel detector can be found here
  • Plots on the Pixel cosmics and calibration can be found here.

Please do not add figures on your own. Contact the Pixel Project Leader Martin Kocian or Claudia Gemme in case of questions and/or suggestions.

Performance Plots tracking from June 2015

Public Link CDS record (ATLAS) Full Title Last Update Contacts
PIX-2015-001 ATL-COM-INDET-2015-039 Properties of IBL Clusters and Dead Module Map for Pixels with First 2015 Collisions at √s = 13 TeV 2015/06/01 Djama Fares, MarioPaolo Giordani, Silvia Miglioranzi
PIX-2015-002 ATL-INDET-INT-2015-003, ATL-INDET-INT-2016-005 Pixel dE/dx plots in Run 2 2015/09/17 Andrea Gaudiello, Claudia Gemme
PIX-2015-003 ATL-INDET-INT-2015-005, ATL-INDET-INT-2016-015, ATL-INDET-INT-2017-018 Synchronization errors in the Pixel detector in Run 2 2016/07/26 Daiki Yamaguchi, Yosuke Takubo, Masahiko Saito
PIX-2015-004 ATL-INDET-INT-2015-004 Run 2 Pixel and IBL Timing Performance Plots 2015/09/17 Hideyuki Oide
PIX-2015-005 ATL-INDET-INT-2015-006 IBL DCS Monitoring Plots 2015/09/17 Kazuki Motohashi, Hideyuki Oide
PIX-2015-007 ATL-INDET-PUB-2015-002 Drift of IBL LV current and its consequence in IBL distortion 2015/11/26 Hideyuki Oide
PIX-2015-009 ATL-INDET-INT-2016-001 Evolution of the fraction of inactive modules up to Dec 2015 2015/12/08 Kazuki Motohashi
PIX-2016-001 ATL-INDET-INT-2015-009 Pixel/IBL offline monitoring plots in Run2 2016/02/04 Daiki Yamaguchi, Yosuke Takubo
PIX-2016-004 ATL-INDET-INT-2016-011 Plots of occupancy ratio between Pixel layer and IBL in 2015 and 2016 2016/05/23 Daiki Yamaguchi, Yosuke Takubo
PIX-2016-007 ATL-INDET-INT-2016-013, ATL-INDET-INT-2016-023, ATL-INDET-INT-2018-005 Hit occupancy in Pixel and IBL in 2016 and 2018, and with zero bias 2018/10/08 Daiki Yamaguchi, Yosuke Takubo, Flera Rizatdinova
PIX-2016-008 ATL-INDET-INT-2016-016 Timing Plots for the Pixel and IBL in 2016 2016/07/27 Satoshi Higashino, Hideyuki Oide
PIX-2016-009 ATL-INDET-INT-2016-017, ATL-INDET-INT-2017-022 Time dependence of Cluster size and dE/dx of IBL and B-Layer in 2016 2017/12/06 Yosuke Takubo, Gavin Hesketh
PIX-2016-012 ATL-INDET-INT-2016-024, ATL-INDET-INT-2018-002 B-Layer Hit-on-Track Efficiency 2018/07/02 Pierfrancesco Butti, Marco Battaglia
PIX-2017-001 ATL-INDET-INT-2017-005 Comparison between old and new readout at Layer-1 in 2016 2017/03/09 Yosuke Takubo
PIX-2017-003 ATL-INDET-INT-2017-012 Measurement of the IBL Lorentz angle 2017/07/05 Javier Llorente Merino
PIX-2017-004 ATL-INDET-INT-2017-013, ATL-INDET-INT-2018-007 Charge Collection Efficiency as a function of integrated luminosity 2018/04/20 Lorenzo Rossini
PIX-2017-006 ATL-INDET-INT-2017-023 IBL SEU and Corrective Action 2017/12/05 Christopher Blake Martin
PIX-2017-007 ATL-INDET-INT-2017-020 Synchronization error rate at Layer-1 in 2016 and 2017 2017/12/05 Yosuke Takubo
PIX-2017-008 ATL-INDET-INT-2017-021 Decrease of hit occupancy in the IBL and Pixel layers in 2017 2017/12/05 Yosuke Takubo
PIX-2017-009 ATL-INDET-INT-2017-024 Bandwidth usage in the Pixel readout sytem in 2017 2017/12/05 Knut Zoch
PIX-2018-002 ATL-COM-INDET-2018-022 IBL Hit Spatial Resolution 2018/04/16 Marco Battaglia
PIX-2018-003 ATL-COM-DAPR-2018-004 SEU in the fraction of noisy-or-quiet pixels and broken clusters in 3D Modules of IBL 2018/04/16 Peilian Liu
PIX-2018-004 ATL-COM-INDET-2018-016 Radiation damage simulation for dE/dx in Run 2 2018/04/16 Ben Nachman
PIX-2018-005 ATL-COM-INDET-2018-014, ATL-INDET-INT-2018-010 Radiation damage simulation plots in Run 2 2018/04/16 Ben Nachman, Julien Beyer
PIX-2018-007 ATL-INDET-INT-2018-006, ATL-INDET-INT-2018-004 Study of SEU in FEI4 2018/06/26 Alexandre Rozanov, Pierfrancesco Butti

PHYS and INDET PUB NOTES

Reference Full Title Publication Date
ATL-INDET-PUB-2014-005 Using the size of clusters in the ATLAS pixel detector to reject spurious clusters and provide initial estimate of track's direction and position along the beam line 2014/09/05
ATL-INDET-PUB-2016-001 IBL Efficiency and Single Point Resolution in Collision Events 2016/08/03

Additional notes with approved plots

Data 2012 - Module Error Rate Plots

border=1 cellpadding=10 cellspacing=10>

The average number of modules with readout errors per event in the innermost pixel layer (consisting of 286 modules), as a function of the time withing a run in luminosity block units (one luminosity block corresponds approximately to one minute of data-taking). Beacuse of single event upset a module may get stuck in a permanent error state. Therefore an automatic recovery procedure has been developed which detects modules in such state and reset them. The data are taken from a run before (black points) and after (blue points) the recovery procedure was introduced. After the automatic recovery, the number of modules in error state has decreased significantly. SynchErrors_208354_206369.png
SynchErrors_208354_206369.eps

Data 2012 - Depletion Depth Plots

border=1 cellpadding=10 cellspacing=10>

Dependence between track depth and angle of incidence. Single track depth values are shown in the scatter plot. The corresponding size of the cluster in which the track depth was calculated is indicated by a colour code. The maximum track depth values are superimposed. They are extracted from error function fits for different angle slices.
(Bottom) Example of a track depth distribution for one angle slice. The incidence angle varies between 1.3 rad and 1.4 rad. The corresponding error function fit is also shown. The minimum and maximum track depth values are defined by the inflection points of the error function fit.

Contact: Andre Lukas Schorlemmer, September 2014
Reference: ATLAS-COM-CONF-2014-059 internal

02.07.2012
EtaPixel1.png
eps, pdf version

02.07.2012, zoom
tdAllSlice_044_13-14Fitdata11_7TeV_00182516.png
eps, pdf version

Cluster depth distribution for the bias voltage scan taken at the 02.07.2012, 26.09.2012, 01.11.2012, 22.01.2013 and the 29.01.2013. The bias voltage of layer 0 was increased stepwise during the scan until the sensor was fully depleted. Tracks from collision data were used to calculate the cluster depth. Only clusters located on modules with a module position on stave of -3 in layer 0 are used in this plot. The most probable value of the cluster depth increases with increasing bias voltage until the sensors are fully depleted.

Contact: Andre Lukas Schorlemmer, September 2014
Reference: ATLAS-COM-CONF-2014-059 internal

02.07.2012
CdDistStavePos_-3_02_07_2012.png
eps, pdf version

26.09.2012
CdDistStavePos_-3_26_09_2012.png
eps, pdf version

01.11.2012
CdDistStavePos_-3_01_11_2012.png
eps, pdf version

22 and 29.01.2013
CdDistStavePos_-3_01_2013.png
eps, pdf version

Depletion depth as a function of the Module Position on Stave. Only pixel layer 0 is shown. The bias voltage scan was taken at the 02.07.2012. At the beginning of July 2012 it was expected that modules in layer 0 start to undergo type-inversion. The bias voltage of layer 0 was increased stepwise during the scan to a maximum of 150 V. At the date of the scan this maximum voltage was definitely high enough to fully deplete the sensors. The depletion depth increases with increasing bias voltage until full depletion is reached, as expected after type-inversion. It is clearly visible that the depletion voltage is very small right after type-inversion, because the depletion depth does not increase significantly for bias voltages higher than 20 V. The amount of statistics is too low for a measurement in the centre of the detector at low bias voltages. The error bars are purely statistical and they are in general smaller than the systematic uncertainty, which varies between 10 and 20 μm.
In the bottom plot, a zoom into the region with higher bias voltages is shown.

Contact: Andre Lukas Schorlemmer, September 2014
Reference: ATLAS-COM-CONF-2014-059 internal

02.07.2012
depldepthvseta_allV_02_07_2012.png
eps, pdf version

02.07.2012, zoom
depldepthvseta_allV_closeup_02_07_2012.png
eps, pdf version

Depletion depth as a function of the Module Position on Stave. Only pixel layer 0 is shown and the bias voltage scan was taken at the 26.09.2012. The bias voltage of layer 0 was increased stepwise during the scan to a maximum of 150 V. At the date of the scan this maximum voltage was definitely high enough to fully deplete the sensors. The amount of statistics is too low for a measurement in the centre of the detector. The error bars are purely statistical and they are in general smaller than the systematic uncertainty, which varies between 10 and 20 μm.
In the bottom plot, a zoom into the region with higher bias voltages is shown.

Contact: Andre Lukas Schorlemmer, September 2014
Reference: ATLAS-COM-CONF-2014-059 internal

26.09.2012
depldepthvseta_allV_26_09_2012.png
eps, pdf version

26.09.2012, zoom
depldepthvseta_allV_closeup_26_09_2012.png
eps, pdf version

Depletion depth as a function of the Module Position on Stave. Only pixel layer 0 is shown and the bias voltage scan was taken at the 01.11.2012. The bias voltage of layer 0 was increased stepwise during the scan to a maximum of 150 V. At the date of the scan this maximum voltage was definitely high enough to fully deplete the sensors. The amount of statistics is too low for a measurement in the centre of the detector. The error bars are purely statistical and they are in general smaller than the systematic uncertainty, which varies between 10 and 20 μm.


In the bottom plot, a zoom into the region with higher bias voltages is shown.

Contact: Andre Lukas Schorlemmer, September 2014
Reference: ATLAS-COM-CONF-2014-059 internal

01.11.2012
depldepthvseta_allV_01_11_2012.png
eps, pdf version

01.11.2012, zoom
depldepthvseta_allV_closeup_01_11_2012.png
eps, pdf version

Depletion depth as a function of the Module Position on Stave. Only pixel layer 0 is shown. The bias voltage scan was taken between the 22.01.2013 and the 29.01.2013. The bias voltage of layer 0 was increased stepwise during the scan to a maximum of 150 V. At the date of the scan this maximum voltage was definitely high enough to fully deplete the sensors. The amount of statistics is too low for a measurement in the centre of the detector. The error bars are purely statistical and they are in general smaller than the systematic uncertainty, which varies between 10 and 20 μm.


In the bottom plot, a zoom into the region with higher bias voltages is shown.

Contact: Andre Lukas Schorlemmer, September 2014
Reference: ATLAS-COM-CONF-2014-059 internal

Jan.2013
depldepthvseta_allV_01_2013.png
eps, pdf version

Jan.2013, zoom
depldepthvseta_allV_closeup_01_2013.png
eps, pdf version

Depletion depth as a function of the Module Position on Stave. The depletion depth is shown for pixel layer 1. The bias voltage scan was taken at the 01.11.2012. The bias voltage of layer 1 was increased stepwise during the scan to a maximum of 150 V. At the date of the scan this maximum voltage was definitely high enough to fully deplete the sensors. The amount of statistics is too low for a measurement in the centre of the detector. The error bars are purely statistical and they are in general smaller than the systematic uncertainty, which varies between 10 and 20 μm.


In the bottom plot, a zoom into the region with higher bias voltages is shown.

Contact: Andre Lukas Schorlemmer, September 2014
Reference: ATLAS-COM-CONF-2014-059 internal

01.11.2012
depldepthvseta_allV_01_11_2012_L1.png
eps, pdf version

01.11.2012, zoom
depldepthvseta_allV_closeup_01_11_2012_L1.png
eps, pdf version

Depletion depth as a function of the Module Position on Stave. The depletion depth is shown for pixel layer 1. The bias voltage scan was taken between the 22.01.2013 and the 29.01.2013. The bias voltage of layer 1 was increased stepwise during the scan to a maximum of 150 V. At the date of the scan this maximum voltage was definitely high enough to fully deplete the sensors. The amount of statistics is too low for a measurement in the centre of the detector. The error bars are purely statistical and they are in general smaller than the systematic uncertainty, which varies between 10 and 20 μm.


In the bottom plot, a zoom into the region with higher bias voltages is shown.

Contact: Andre Lukas Schorlemmer, September 2014
Reference: ATLAS-COM-CONF-2014-059 internal

Jan.2013
depldepthvseta_allV_01_2013_L1.png
eps, pdf version

Jan.2013, zoom
depldepthvseta_allV_closeup_01_2013_L1.png
eps, pdf version

Depletion depth as a function of the Module Position on Stave. Only pixel layer 0 is shown. The bias voltage scan was taken at the 01.11.2012. The amount of statistics is too low for a measurement in the centre of the detector at low bias voltages. For proton-proton collisions the muon stream has been used to measure the depletion depth. However, it is possible to use several other streams. For this measurement the minbias stream was used as a crosscheck.. The error bars are purely statistical and they are in general smaller than the systematic uncertainty, which varies between 10 and 20 μm.


In the bottom plot, a zoom into the region with higher bias voltages is shown.

Contact: Andre Lukas Schorlemmer, September 2014
Reference: ATLAS-COM-CONF-2014-059 internal

01.11.2012
depldepthvseta_allV_01_11_2012_minbias.png
eps, pdf version

01.11.2012, zoom
depldepthvseta_allV_closeup_01_11_2012_minbias.png
eps, pdf version

Depletion depth as a function of the Module Position on Stave. The depletion depth is only presented for pixel layer 0. Monte Carlo data with two different depletion depths is shown in the figure. The Monte Carlo data samples have been produced to validate the method.

Contact: Andre Lukas Schorlemmer, September 2014
Reference: ATLAS-COM-CONF-2014-059 internal

depldepthvseta_MC.png
eps, pdf version

Data 2011 - Depletion Depth Plots

border=1 cellpadding=10 cellspacing=10>

The Depletion Depth of the Atlas Pixel Detector is shown as a function of the track incidence angle in the long pixel direction. Results are shown for two 2011 data runs and compared with Monte Carlo simulations. Two sets of Monte Carlo simulations have been produced one with an active sensor thickness S = 250 μm and a second one with S = 200 μm to validate the method. The detector ran fully depleted in 2011. Therefore, the measured depletion depth is in agreement with the active sensor thickness of S ~ 250 μm. The shown errors bars are purely the statistical errors on the fit to the track depth distribution of each angular slice. An additional error from the surface point correction contributes to the mean value of the Depletion Depth. The statistical error of the surface point is ~ 8 μm for MC Simulations and ~ 3 μm for beam data. The systematic uncertainty is 10 μm. Alldepl.png
Alldepl.eps
The plot with only data. The reference document for these plots can be found in CDS: https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1428448?ln=en Datadepl.png
Datadepl.eps

Data 2011 - MC Comparison Plots

border=1 cellpadding=10 cellspacing=10>

Data-MC comparison of cluster size versus angle for 2011 data and Pythia8 Lorentz.png
ClusAng.eps
Pixel Cluster size in eta - Data-MC comparison - data 2011, Pythia8 Eta.png
PixDeltaCol.eps
Pixel Cluster size in phi - Data-MC comparison - data 2011, Pythia8 Phi.png
PixDeltaRow.eps
Reconstructed primary vertices per bunch crossing - All clusters - Data-MC comparison - data 2011, Pythia8 AllClus.png
AllClus.eps
Reconstructed primary vertices per bunch crossing - On-track clusters - Data-MC comparison - data 2011, Pythia8 TrackClus.png
TrackClus.eps

Lorentz Angle plots

border=1 cellpadding=10 cellspacing=10>

*Pixel cluster width as a function of the track incident angle in Rphi direction.*
Dataset 900 GeV: runs of period 10th of December 2009 to 14th of December 2009 run numbers: 142165, 142166, 142191, 142193, 142195, 142383
MinBias stream, Threshold: 4000 e
Dataset 7 TeV: run at 30/3/2010 (run number: 152166)
MinBias stream, Threshold: 3500 e
Magnetic Field is ON
x-axis corresponds to the track incidence angle on the pixel module (r-phi plane) in local reference frame
Only clusters on tracks are considered
Cuts applied:

  • Only barrel clusters
  • Remove clusters which contain: ganged pixels or pixels found in first/last row/column
  • Selected tracks only if: nPixelHits>0 && ((5*nSCTHits+nTRTHits)>29) && -1<Track_Eta<1
  • Fiducial cut: Only select clusters which are crossed by the tracks (cut applied in the residuals). In other words, a more tight and realistic cluster association to track is demanded since selection criteria are currently loose in the TrkValidation ntuple.

Entries for 900 GeV plot: ~1M clusters (after applying all cuts)
Entries for 7 TeV plot: ~3.9M clusters (after applying all cuts)
Both positive and negative tracks are taken into consideration
Kink for 7 TeV plot at low angles, due to limited statistics at this region
Slight difference between 900 GeV and 7 TeV plots is due to the difference in threshold
Fit function:

fitfunctionLorentz.png

have a look at reference Reference: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1248606
Lorentz angle values, derived from fit:


  900 GeV (mrad) 7 TeV (mrad)
alpha_L 211.6 \pm 2.6 211.3 \pm 1.6
900GeV_LorentzAngle.png
eps version
7TeV_LorentzAngle.png
eps version
Both_LorentzAngle.png
eps version
Pixel cluster width as a function of the track incident angle in Rphi direction.
Tracks are selected with the cuts of the cosmics note on the number of hits: nPixel > 1 and 5*nSCT+nTRT > 29, using only barrel hits. Some selection on the pixel hit on track is also done as in the pixel Lorentz note (track extrapolation inside the pixel cluster, at least two rows and columns between the cluster and the border, no ganged pixels, and pseudorapidity of the track less than 1). Data of two different runs and the 900 GeV simulation (with r871 tag, i.e. day-1 misalignments) are compared.
The agreement in cluster size vs angle is good, the small difference is due to the fact that the Lorentz angle in the simulation is slightly larger than in the data.
LorentzDataVsSimBonOff.png
LorentzDataVsSimBonOff.eps

Noise occupancy and association efficiency

border=1 cellpadding=10 cellspacing=10>

*Noise occupancy*
Pixel Detector occupancy in randomly triggered events with empty bunches. Noise rate is dominated by few pixels (300-1500 out of 80M) which are detected on a run-by-run basis by offline prompt calibration and masked during the bulk processing. For the bulk processing, the remaining noise occupancy is <10-9 hit/ pixel/BC, corresponding to <0.2 noise hits per event when reading out 5 BC.
The runs shown correspond to the data taking period 18th April – 9th May 2010
NoiseRate.png
eps version
*Efficiency*
Efficiency for a track to have an hit associated when crossing a Pixel Detector layer.
Data shown are for express stream on 7 TeV run 155112 (15th May 2010), values taken from DQ monitoring after bulk reconstruction.
Dead modules are excluded from the association efficiency computation, but otherwise dead regions contribute to the inefficiency.
The full efficiency of B-Layer is due to the track selection, the lower efficiency for the most external disks is mainly due to inefficient regions on some modules.
Error bars are smaller then marker sizes.
Efficiency.png
eps version
*Inefficiency sources*
The lower efficiency of the most external endcap disks can be attributed to dead regions and dead FE of few modules.
The top plot show the efficiency for all modules of EndCap A. Empty bins are dead modules.
The right plots show, for three low efficiency modules, the hitmap collected on runs 152166-153200, corresponding to the first two weeks of operation.
Inefficiency is due to a front-end failure for the top module, and region of disconnected bumps at the module edge.
MapEffECA.png
eps version
D3AS04M6_prelim.png
eps version
D3AS03M3_prelim.png
eps version
D3AS03M6_prelim.png
eps version

Cluster properties and charge sharing

border=1 cellpadding=10 cellspacing=10>

*Cluster size as a function of track incident angle*
The size of pixel clusters depends on particle incident angle w.r.t. the detector module surface. Cosmic rays and particles originating in collisions feature different incoming direction w.r.t. the detector modules.
In this plot the cluster size along the precise pixel direction is represented for hits measured in the barrel. The incident angle value has been corrected by subtracting the value of the Lorentz angle. The full angular range [-90°; 90°] is covered by cosmic rays, while only a smaller range is covered by particles originating in collisions
xClustersize_data.png
eps version
b/w png version
b/w eps version
xClustersize_cosmics.png
eps version
b/w png version
b/w eps version
*Cluster size as a function of track incident angle*
In this plot the cluster size along the beam direction is represented for hits measured in the barrel. The full pseudorapidity range is covered by particles originating in collisions while only a smaller range is covered by cosmic rays.
yClustersize_data.png
eps version
b/w png version
b/w eps version
yClustersize_cosmics.png
eps version
b/w png version
b/w eps version
*Fit of charge sharing correction*
Residual between track extrapolation and the centre-of-cluster position in the Pixel Detector for two-pixel clusters in the local y direction and different incident angles. Residuals are plotted as a function of the charge sharing among pixels in the cluster and the slopes of the distribution are fit. The measured slopes (!) are used to improve the position resolution with respect to the purely binary readout according to the formula
xcycformula.png
FitExampleeta2.png
eps version
*Value of charge sharing correction as a function of track incident angle*
The charge sharing correction (\Delta – described in previous plot) depends on the cluster size and on the particle incident angle w.r.t. the detector module surface. During the “offline calibration loop” such correction is computed and parameterized for each direction of the pixel clusters in order to reach the optimal resolution in the detector.
Here the charge correction is drawn for clusters made of two rows of pixels, as a function of the track incident angle, corrected for the Lorentz angle. A comparison between the correction computed on cosmic ray data and on collision data is reported. For the angular range in which both datasets feature sufficient statistics for the computation of the correction, results are nicely compatible, with small differences due to different running conditions (read-out threshold).
ChargeSharing2x.png
eps version
*Value of charge sharing correction as a function of track incident angle*
Here the charge correction is drawn for clusters made of two rows of pixels, as a function of the track incident angle, corrected for the Lorentz angle. A comparison between the correction computed on cosmic ray data and on collision data is reported. For the angular range in which both datasets feature sufficient statistics for the computation of the correction, results are nicely compatible, with small differences due to different running conditions (read-out threshold).
ChargeSharing2y.png
eps version
*Value of charge sharing correction as a function of track incident angle*
Here the charge correction is drawn for clusters made of three rows of pixels, as a function of the track incident angle, corrected for the Lorentz angle. A comparison between the correction computed on cosmic ray data and on collision data is reported. For the angular range in which both datasets feature sufficient statistics for the computation of the correction, results are nicely compatible, with small differences due to different running conditions (read-out threshold).
ChargeSharing3x.png
eps version
*RMS of residuals as a function of track incident angle (Collision data)*
The RMS of residuals along the precise pixel direction is presented for collision data, as a function of the track incident angle, corrected for the Lorentz angle. The angular range available for particles originating in collisions is smaller with respect to cosmic rays. Nevertheless, the improvement in resolution due to charge sharing based correction is visible in the range where two-rowclusters are the most probable. The overall RMS is higher with respect to cosmic ray data, due to the average lower momentum of particles. Updated in March 2011. Top plot: DATA, bottom plot: MC. Same overall behaviour as in data, more statistical fluctuations in MC.

Sample: data10_7TeV.00167844.physics_JetTauEtmiss.merge.DESDM_TRACK.r1774_p327_p333, PIXEL/PixReco tag; PixelOfflineReco-7TeV-000-04; Autumn reprocessing (much improved alignement); DESDM (richer in high pT tracks).

Plots obtained using PixelCalibAlgs-00-04-15

Tracks considered: pT ≥ 5 GeV; 5*nSCTHits + nTRTHits ≥ 30; Cluster accepted if √((1000/GeVTrkPt)2 + ResCut 2) ≥ ResDigital, with ResCut = 80 μm for φ and ResCut = 400 μm for η.

RMS : computed only for points where the statistics is sufficient ( > 50 clusters); weighted RMS, considering only bins within [mean - 3*RMS(residuals histogram), mean + 3*RMS(residuals histogram)]; Residual histograms have 100 bins, and range [-150, 150] μm in phi, [-400, 400] μm in η.

res_RMS_phi_repro_data.png
eps version
res_RMS_phi_repro_MC.png
eps version
*RMS of residuals as a function of track incident angle (Collision data)*
The RMS of residuals along the beam direction is presented for collision data. The improvement determined by charge sharing based correction is clearly visible in the rage where two-column clusters are present. Plot updated in March 2011. Top plot: DATA, bottom plot: MC. Same overall behaviour as in data, more statistical fluctuations in MC.

Sample: data10_7TeV.00167844.physics_JetTauEtmiss.merge.DESDM_TRACK.r1774_p327_p333, PIXEL/PixReco tag; PixelOfflineReco-7TeV-000-04; Autumn reprocessing (much improved alignement); DESDM (richer in high pT tracks).

Plots obtained using PixelCalibAlgs-00-04-15

Tracks considered: pT ≥ 5 GeV; 5*nSCTHits + nTRTHits ≥ 30; Cluster accepted if √((1000/GeVTrkPt)2 + ResCut 2) ≥ ResDigital, with ResCut = 80 μm for φ and ResCut = 400 μm for η.

RMS : computed only for points where the statistics is sufficient ( > 50 clusters); weighted RMS, considering only bins within [mean - 3*RMS(residuals histogram), mean + 3*RMS(residuals histogram)]; Residual histograms have 100 bins, and range [-150, 150] μm in phi, [-400, 400] μm in η.
res_RMS_eta_repro_data.png
eps version
res_RMS_eta_repro_data.png
eps version
*RMS of residuals as a function of track incident angle (Cosmic ray data)*
The resolution of the Pixel Detector is determined, among other aspects, by the incident angle of the particles. In these plots, to study the resolution of the detector, the residuals between cluster position and track extrapolation are presented. The intrinsic resolution of the detector and the track extrapolation uncertainty sum up in determining the RMS of residual distributions
The RMS of residuals along the precise pixel direction is presented for cosmic ray data, as a function of the track incident angle, corrected for the Lorentz angle. A comparison between the two algorithm used to determine the cluster position in the detector is visible: the charge sharing algorithm improves resolution, in particular for incident angles in the range (-25 deg;-5 deg) and (5 deg;20 deg). This is in fact the range where two-row clusters are the most probable.
Phiprofile_cosmics.png
eps version
*RMS of residuals as a function of track incident angle (Cosmic ray data)*
The RMS of residuals along the beam direction is presented for cosmic ray data. The improvement determined by charge sharing based correction is clearly visible, in the rage where two-column clusters are present. Due to the cosmic rays angular distribution, low statistics is available for high values of pseudorapidity.
Etaprofile_cosmics.png
eps version

Timing plots

border=1 cellpadding=10 cellspacing=10>

*LVL1A clusters ON track*
Dataset: data10_7TeV. 00155160.express_express.merge.NTUP_TRKVALID.x10_m469
17th May 2010 run, sqrt(s) = 7 TeV
Read out window: 4 BCs
Threshold: 3500 e
Clusters associated to tracks:
  • Track pT>500 MeV
  • nPixelHits>0 && nPixelHits+nSCTHits>2

Differences in entries for the less populated bins (L1A =0, L1A =2 and L1A =3) are due to timewalk effect
L1A_barrel_log.png
eps version
L1A_ec_log.png
eps version
L1A_log.png
eps version
*LVL1A clusters OFF track*
Dataset: data10_7TeV. 00155160.express_express.merge.NTUP_TRKVALID.x10_m469
17th May 2010 run, sqrt(s) = 7 TeV
Read out window: 4 BCs
Threshold: 3500 e
All Pixel clusters selected without association to tracks
  • No cuts applied
L1A_barrel_offTrack_log.png
eps version
L1A_ec_offTrack_log.png
eps version
L1A_offTrack_log.png
eps version
*Result of fine scans*
The plots show the results of the two timing scans we performed during collision data taking. A global shift of the clock phase was applied to the Pixel Detector in fine steps (1 ns for the left plot and 0.5 ns for the right) and the time for which the hits started to be registered out of time (i.e. registered in the previous bunch crossing) was measured for individual modules. The plots show the last scan point in which all the module hits were still in time. The fine adjustment of the clock phase of individual modules was performed in between for each module using the delay circuitry in the off-detector readout electronics. The sigma of the plots show the good timing alignment of the modules after the adjustment, however the position of the mean requires a correction to prevent that several modules would register hits out of time.
T0beforeAdj.png
eps version
T0afterAdj.png
eps version
*Late hits*
Clusters corresponding to late BC are not associated to tracks (7 TeV, run 155160). The distribution of the position inside a module shows that they are mostly:

  • clusters in the ganged region (80% are classified as fakes by internal patter recognition)

  • clusters at the edge of the sensitive region (part of particle trajectory is outside the sensitive area)

  • wide clusters (>2 rows) due to low momentum particles reaching the detector at high incident angle.
LateHits_color.png
eps version
b/w png version
b/w eps version
*Timewalk from collision data*
The timewalk can also be observed directly on data looking at the average relative BC in which a hit is observed as a function of the collected charge. In such a case the resolution is limited by the B granularity, and the response is flat above 10 000 e because almost all hits are detected in the correct BC.
The ToT -Charge relationship cannot be well calibrated near to the threshold region, therefore sometimes low ToT hits are reconstructed with a charge lower than the 3 500 e threshold and the timewalk profile is strongly deformed.
This plot is obtained from run 155073
TimewalkData.png
eps version
*Synchronization*
Module synchronization can be assessed by checking the average bunch crossing detected for high charge (>15 000 e) single-pixel clusters.
After timing adjustement on collision data, on all the barrel module the dispersion is 0.007 BC, corresponding to 0.17 ns.
The same plot for cosmic-rays, obtained before the module-by-module time adjustment was carried out, was giving a RMS of 0.17 BC, corresponding to 4.25 ns
The bin width is 0.004 BC = 0.1 ns
AverageBC_v1.png
eps version
For low luminosity data-taking, the Pixel Detector readout window covers 5 bunch crossings, centered around the trigger (bunch crossing=2 in figure). Even before correcting for a few out-of-time modules, the standard data-taking mode for the Pixel Detector readout for early 2010 data, which corresponds to a three bunch- crossing window, will be 99.95% efficient for clusters on tracks.
From their time distribution, most clusters not associated to tracks are not due to noise but to low momentum particles generated by pp interactions and not reconstructed.
The late clusters in the off track distribution are due to low charge deposits that are either near the edge of the active region or fakes due to a readout ambiguity in the region between two front-end chips.
PixelLVL1A_SolOn.png
PixelLVL1A_SolOn.eps

A timing monitoring histogram for a single non-T0-timed Pixel module. That means that for this module the sampling clock phase relative to collision timing is not optimized for collection of pixel hits in a single bunch crossing. The histogram shows Pixel ToT versus relative bunch crossing of the Pixel readout for all hits sampled by the online ROD monitoring during a single run with 900 GeV collisions. The size of readout window was 5 bunch crossings long; the small fraction of noise hits with predominantly lower Pixel ToT can be observed in the first bin. Because the module was not properly T0-timed the high amplitude signals (i.e. with high Pixel ToT) fall into the relative bunch crossing bin 1, as a result of the timewalk effect.

Non_T0timed_Pixel_Module_r142193.png
eps version

A timing monitoring histogram for a single T0-timed Pixel module. This implies that for this module the sampling clock phase relative to the collision timing is optimized for collection of pixel hits in a single bunch crossing. The histogram shows Pixel ToT versus relative bunch crossing of Pixel readout for all hits sampled by the online ROD monitoring during a single run with 900 GeV collisions. The size of readout window was 5 bunch crossings long; due to very low noise occupancy of this module no hits are seen in the first two bins. The timewalk effect is clearly seen - high amplitude signals (i.e. with high Pixel ToT) are detected earlier, i.e. they have lower relative bunch crossing.

T0timed_Pixel_Module_r142193.png
eps version

Energy loss in Pixel

border=1 cellpadding=10 cellspacing=10>

*Energy loss in Pixel*
The track dE/dx is calculated starting from the charge collected in the pixel clusters associated to the track itself.
To have a good measurement at the track level, a selection at the cluster level has to be applied in order to be sure that the charge has been properly collected.
Need to exclude the edge of the detector and the ganged region where the collected charge is lower. This is achieved by requiring the position of the cluster in a fiducial region excluding the border of the sensor and the ganged pixels:


The fraction of clusters that survives this cut (Good clusters) is 91%. But the number of tracks for which the track dE/dx is not measurable (assuming that at least two clusters are required) is reduced only by 3%

*dE/dx scatter plots*
The track dE/dx is defined as an average of the individual cluster dE/dx measurements (charge collected in the cluster, corrected for the track length), for all the Good Pixel Clusters associated to the track. To reduce the Landau tails, the average is evaluated after having removed the cluster(s) with the highest charge:
one cluster is removed for tracks with 2,3,4 good clusters;
two clusters for tracks with 5 or more good clusters.
To properly measure the track momentum, a cut on the number of SCT hits is required.

  • nSCTHits>=2 if pT < 100 MeV

  • nSCTHits>=2 if 200 MeV < pT < 300 MeV

  • nSCTHits>=6 if pT > 300 MeV


Plots of track dE/dx vs momentum are presented according to the number of Good Pixel Clusters associated to the track (=1,=2,=3,=4,=5,>=6 and >=3) for the full detector acceptance and for the Barrel only (|h|<1.8). The distribution for tracks with only one good cluster is shown as well, but in this case dE/dx is not considered a useful measurement.
For not specialistic Pixel talks, we suggest to use the plot with at least 3 Good Pixel Clusters (first 2). Bands for pions, kaons and (anti-)protons are clearly visible. Deuterons are visible as well. The resolution of the track dE/dx is shown later in this table
Run Number: 152166, 152214, 152221, 152441 (Ecm = 7 TeV) Data format: data10_7TeV.0015xxxx.physics_MinBias.merge.NTUP_MINBIAS.f239_p127_tid125123_00)
For a complete note use dE/dx note
AllGE3.png
eps version
barrelGE3.png
eps version
All1.png
eps version
All2.png
eps version
All3.png
eps version
All4.png
eps version
All5.png
eps version
All6.png
eps version
b1.png
eps version
b2.png
eps version
b3.png
eps version
b4.png
eps version
b5.png
eps version
b6.png
eps version
*Track dE/dx resolution*
A track dE/dx resolution of ~12% is measured using particles with p > 3 GeV ( to minimize spread due to low beta ionization), with at least 6 SCT hits (to assure track quality) and requiring at least 3 Good clusters (to properly measure the Track dE/dx). Mean and sigma are obtained from a gaussian fit of the data.

Samples:

  • Data: Run 152214 at Ecm = 7 TeV (data10_7TeV.00152214.physics_MinBias.merge.NTUP_MINBIAS.f239_p127_tid125123_00)

  • MC: mc09_7TeV.105001.pythia_minbias.merge.NTUP_MINBIAS.e517_s764_s767_r1229_p13
PlotTruncated_Final.png
eps version
Energy loss in Pixel (900 GeV)

This plot shows the dependence of the dE/dx on the track momentum and charge.
Notice how protons and kaons are easily identifiable at low p for the higher energy deposit.
Tracks are selected to have at least three barrel pixel hits, some cuts are imposed on the track angles in order to maximize the probability that the charge collection is complete.
The dE/dx is measured per track as the mean of the cluster charge properly weighted for the track length in silicon. Indeed the highest cluster charge associated to the track is excluded in the calculation of the mean, to reduce the Landau tails.
The plot is based on about 180 000 tracks, i.e. about 10% of the collision data.

dEdx_Qp.png
eps version
*Pixel cluster charge*
Pixel cluster charge corrected for the path length, tracks with pT>0.1 GeV have been used. The black data points with errors are superimposed to the MC red line.
dEdx_Cluster.png
eps version
Proton Mass Stability in Run 1

Proton mass calculated from the momentum measured in the Inner Detector and specific energy loss measured in Pixel Detector. The data, spanning from 2010 to 2012 and over 5 orders of magnitude in luminosity, are subdivided in periods of similar data taking conditions to illustrate the stability of the method. A typical run for each period is selected for the measurement. Vertical lines separate the years of data-taking. The reported values are the fitted peaks of the mass measurements for tracks with pt > 400 MeV /C, "good pixel clusters" >=2, nSCT >=6, d0GeV/C, dE/dx >1.9 MeV cm^2/g in a specific run. Only the statistical errors are shown. Clusters on the sensor edges or attached to shallow tracks are not considered as good pixel clusters.
The red horizontal line represents the nominal proton mass value and the gray horizontal lines show the +/- 1 % error band. The full scale of the plot corresponds to the 1 \sigma mass resolution (~12%).
The plot demonstrates that the calibration of the dE/dx is stable at the 1 % level over data-taking conditions and detector settings.

StabilityMassProton_2010_2012_forATLASPreliminary.png
eps version
dE/dx during 25 ns bunch spacing run in 2012

Distribution of the pixel dE/dx in data (black) and Monte Carlo (full yellow) for tracks with |eta| < 2.5, at least 6 SCT associated hits (to assure track quality), at least 2 "good pixel clusters" (to properly measure the dE/dx). Both data and MC have bunch spacing of 25 ns. Clusters on the sensor edges or attached to shallow tracks are not considered as good pixel clusters.
Blue (red) line show the fit obtained with a Landau convoluted with a Gaussian function for data (MC).
The ionization in MC is slightly larger: the Most Probable Value is 1.12 MeV cm^2/g in MC and 1.05 MeV cm^2/g in data.
Data sample:
group.detTindet.data12_8TeV.00216416.physics_MinBias.TrkD3PD.25nsReco.06
group.detTindet.mc12_8TeV.159000.ParticleGenerator_nu_E50.TrkD3PD.e1284_s1469_s1470_r4948.25nsReco.05

dEdx25ns_Preliminary.png
eps version
dE/dx during one of the 50 ns bunch spacing run in 2012

Distribution of the pixel dE/dx in data (black) and Monte Carlo (full yellow) for tracks with |eta| < 2.5, at least 6 SCT associated hits (to assure track quality), at least 2 "good pixel clusters" (to properly measure the dE/dx). Both data and MC have bunch spacing of 50 ns. Clusters on the sensor edges or attached to shallow tracks are not considered as good pixel clusters.
Blue (red) line show the fit obtained with a Landau convoluted with a Gaussian function for data (MC).
The ionization in MC is slightly larger: the Most Probable Value is 1.12 MeV cm^2/g in MC and 1.08 MeV cm^2/g in data.
Data Sample:
group.detTindet.data12_8TeV.00*.physics_MinBias.TrkD3PD.50nsReco.06
group.detTindet.mc12_8TeV.159000.ParticleGenerator_nu_E50.TrkD3PD.e1284_s1469_s1470_r4844.50nsReco.05

dEdx50ns_Preliminary.png
eps version

Beam background studies in Pixel

border=1 cellpadding=10 cellspacing=10>

*Pixel cluster row width (phi) with solenoid on / off*
The row width of pixel clusters in the phi direction is plotted for all clusters before tracking and for clusters associated with tracks, for two 2009 data runs in which solenoid magnetic field was on (run 142193) and off (run 141994). The histograms are normalized to the number of entries to give the fraction of pixel clusters for comparison. Fake clusters and clusters with ganged pixels are excluded to avoid edge effects.
For all clusters before tracking, the phi width tail decreases when the solenoid is off. This effect is not apparent in the tail for clusters on tracks. The decrease is thought to be due to a lack of deflection in the absence of a magnetic field of low transverse momentum tracks, primarily from the beam background.
The low cluster size region is expanded from the previous plot.
At small cluster sizes, the phi width increases when the solenoid is off for all clusters and clusters on tracks. This is expected from the increased spread of the drifting charge carriers, which are no longer focused by the Lorentz angle effect in the absence of the magnetic field.
norm_pixclus_row.png
eps version
norm_pixclus_row_zoom.png
eps version
*Pixel cluster column width (eta), with solenoid on / off*
The column width of pixel clusters in the eta direction is plotted for all clusters before tracking and for clusters associated with tracks, for two 2009 data runs in which solenoid magnetic field was on (run 142193) and off (run 141994). The histograms are normalized to the number of entries to give the fraction of pixel clusters for comparison. Fake clusters and clusters with ganged pixels are excluded to avoid edge effects.
For all clusters before tracking, the eta width tail increase when the solenoid is off. This effect is not apparent in the tail for clusters on tracks. The increase is thought to be from low transverse momentum tracks, primarily from the beam background, producing longer column width clusters in the barrel region in the absence of the magnetic field.
At small cluster sizes, turning off the solenoid has little effect on the pixel cluster column width. This is expected because the solenoid magnetic field is parallel to the long pixel direction in the barrel, so there is no change in the spread of the drifting charge carriers in the eta direction, contrary to the case for the phi direction.
norm_pixclus_col.png
eps version
norm_pixclus_col_zoom.png
eps version
*Pixel cluster width correlations – Solenoid on, colliding bunches*
The correlations of the pixel cluster size column, the pixel row width (eta) and the pixel column width (eta) are plotted for all clusters before tracking for a 2009 data run in which solenoid magnetic field was on (run 142193). Fake clusters and clusters with ganged pixels are excluded to avoid edge effects.
The plot includes all clusters before tracking, for colliding bunches only.

  • Top plot:
    • Correlation of cluster widths in eta (col) and phi (row).

  • Middle plot:
    • Correlation of cluster eta width vs cluster size (total number of pixels in cluster).

  • Bottom plot:
    • Correlation of cluster phi width vs cluster size.
Bon_collisions_row_col_cor.png
eps version
b/w png version
b/w eps version
Bon_collisions_size_col_cor.png
eps version
b/w png version
b/w eps version
Bon_collisions_size_row_cor.png
eps version
b/w png version
b/w eps version
*Pixel cluster width correlations – Solenoid on, non-colliding*
The correlations of the pixel cluster size column, the pixel row width (eta) and the pixel column width (eta) are plotted for all clusters before tracking for a 2009 data run in which solenoid magnetic field was on (run 142193). Fake clusters and clusters with ganged pixels are excluded to avoid edge effects.
The plot includes all clusters before tracking, for non-colliding bunches only.

  • Top plot:
    • Correlation of cluster widths in eta (col) and phi (row).

  • Middle plot:
    • Correlation of cluster eta width vs cluster size (total number of pixels in cluster).

  • Bottom plot:
    • Correlation of cluster phi width vs cluster size.
Bon_unpairedBCs_row_col_cor.png
eps version
b/w png version
b/w eps version
Bon_unpairedBCs_size_col_cor.png
eps version
b/w png version
b/w eps version
Bon_unpairedBCs_size_row_cor.png
eps version
b/w png version
b/w eps version
*Pixel cluster width correlations for track clusters – Solenoid on, colliding bunches*
The correlations of the pixel cluster size column, the pixel row width (eta) and the pixel column width (eta) are plotted for clusters on tracks for a 2009 data run in which solenoid magnetic field was on (run 142193). Fake clusters and clusters with ganged pixels are excluded to avoid edge effects.
The plot is for clusters associated with tracks, for colliding bunches only.

  • Top plot:
    • Correlation of cluster widths in eta (col) and phi (row).

  • Middle plot:
    • Correlation of cluster eta width vs cluster size (total number of pixels in cluster).

  • Bottom plot:
    • Correlation of cluster phi width vs cluster size.
Bon_collisions_trks_row_col_cor.png
eps version
b/w png version
b/w eps version
Bon_collisions_trks_size_col_cor.png
eps version
b/w png version
b/w eps version
Bon_collisions_trks_size_row_cor.png
eps version
b/w png version
b/w eps version
*Pixel cluster width correlations – Solenoid off, colliding bunches*
The correlations of the pixel cluster size column, the pixel row width (eta) and the pixel column width (eta) are plotted for all clusters before tracking for a 2009 data run in which solenoid magnetic field was off (run 141994). Fake clusters and clusters with ganged pixels are excluded to avoid edge effects.
The plot includes all clusters before tracking, for colliding bunches only.

  • Top plot:
    • Correlation of cluster widths in eta (col) and phi (row).

  • Middle plot:
    • Correlation of cluster eta width vs cluster size (total number of pixels in cluster).

  • Bottom plot:
    • Correlation of cluster phi width vs cluster size.
Boff_collisions_row_col_cor.png
eps version
b/w png version
b/w eps version
Boff_collisions_size_col_cor.png
eps version
b/w png version
b/w eps version
Boff_collisions_size_row_cor.png
eps version
b/w png version
b/w eps version
*Pixel cluster width correlations – Solenoid off, non-colliding*
The correlations of the pixel cluster size column, the pixel row width (eta) and the pixel column width (eta) are plotted for all clusters before tracking for a 2009 data run in which solenoid magnetic field was off (run 141994). Fake clusters and clusters with ganged pixels are excluded to avoid edge effects.
The plot includes all clusters before tracking, for non-colliding bunches only.

  • Top plot:
    • Correlation of cluster widths in eta (col) and phi (row).

  • Middle plot:
    • Correlation of cluster eta width vs cluster size (total number of pixels in cluster).

  • Bottom plot:
    • Correlation of cluster phi width vs cluster size.
Boff_unpairedBCs_row_col_cor.png
eps version
b/w png version
b/w eps version
Boff_unpairedBCs_size_col_cor.png
eps version
b/w png version
b/w eps version
Boff_unpairedBCs_size_row_cor.png
eps version
b/w png version
b/w eps version
*Conclusions*
In the previous plots the correlations between the total pixel cluster size and the cluster widths in the eta (column) and phi (row) directions are plotted for various combinations of the conditions:

  • Solenoid on/off
  • Colliding and non-colliding bunches
  • All pixel clusters and pixel clusters associated with tracks only.

The plots show that most clusters contain a small number of pixels (< 10), whilst at larger cluster sizes, a distinct V-shape is revealed in the correlation between the pixel cluster eta and phi widths versus the total pixel cluster size. The phase space can be divided into two regions, thought to originate from collisions and from beam backgrounds (halo/gas), for the following reasons.
The lower region of the V-shape is present for colliding bunches and is absent in non-colliding bunches. This effect is independent of the state of the solenoid magnetic field. The lower region of the V-shape is also present for clusters associated with tracks, reconstructed from collisions. The conclusion is that the lower region is predominantly from clusters associated with collisions.
The upper region of the V-shape is present in both colliding and non-colliding bunches, suggesting a common source, such as beam background. The shape of the region for non- colliding bunches, was also found to match beam background Monte Carlo simulations.
A comparison of the correlation of the cluster widths in the eta versus phi directions for the solenoid on and off, confirm the conclusions of the plots on slides 2 and 4. When the solenoid is switched off, the cluster eta width increases and the cluster phi width decreases, at large cluster sizes, due to the lack of deflection in the absence of a magnetic field of low transverse momentum tracks, primarily from the beam background.
*Cluster eta width vs pseudorapidity, B field on*
The pixel cluster column width (eta) is plotted by Pixel barrel layer and end-caps for all clusters before tracking for a 2009 data run in which solenoid magnetic field was on (run 142913). Fake clusters and clusters with ganged pixels are excluded to avoid edge effects.
The plot includes all clusters before tracking, for colliding bunches only. The distribution in eta is due to most tracks emerging from the collision point (+ constant from beam background). The slight asymmetry in global pseudorapidity is due to a displacement of interaction point by = -7mm.
Bon_collisions_pixclus_eta_col.png
eps version
*Cluster width vs pseudorapidity, B field on, unpaired bunches*
The pixel cluster column width (eta) is plotted by Pixel barrel layer and end-caps for all clusters before tracking for a 2009 data run in which solenoid magnetic field was on (run 142913). Fake clusters and clusters with ganged pixels are excluded to avoid edge effects.
The plot includes all clusters before tracking, for non-colliding bunches only. The distribution is flat in eta within errors, as expected from beam backgrounds.
Bon_unpairedBCs_pixclus_eta_col.png
eps version

Links


Major updates:
-- BeniaminoDiGirolamo - 21-Oct-2011

Responsible: Beniamino Di Girolamo - Pixel Project Leader
Last reviewed by: Never reviewed

Topic attachments
I Attachment History Action Size Date Who Comment
Unknown file formateps 7TeV_LorentzAngle.eps r1 manage 13.0 K 2010-06-01 - 13:39 UnknownUser  
PNGpng 7TeV_LorentzAngle.png r1 manage 16.1 K 2010-06-01 - 13:38 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps 900GeV_LorentzAngle.eps r1 manage 13.1 K 2010-06-01 - 13:32 UnknownUser  
PNGpng 900GeV_LorentzAngle.png r1 manage 16.4 K 2010-06-01 - 13:32 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps All1.eps r1 manage 1253.9 K 2010-06-01 - 19:21 UnknownUser  
PNGpng All1.png r1 manage 96.6 K 2010-06-01 - 19:21 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps All2.eps r1 manage 872.5 K 2010-06-01 - 19:21 UnknownUser  
PNGpng All2.png r1 manage 72.7 K 2010-06-01 - 19:22 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps All3.eps r1 manage 787.9 K 2010-06-01 - 19:22 UnknownUser  
PNGpng All3.png r1 manage 66.2 K 2010-06-01 - 19:22 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps All4.eps r1 manage 619.2 K 2010-06-01 - 19:22 UnknownUser  
PNGpng All4.png r1 manage 59.0 K 2010-06-01 - 19:23 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps All5.eps r1 manage 443.5 K 2010-06-01 - 19:23 UnknownUser  
PNGpng All5.png r1 manage 48.8 K 2010-06-01 - 19:23 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps All6.eps r1 manage 295.7 K 2010-06-01 - 19:24 UnknownUser  
PNGpng All6.png r1 manage 38.8 K 2010-06-01 - 19:24 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps AllClus.eps r1 manage 278.6 K 2011-10-21 - 20:50 UnknownUser Reconstructed primary vertices per bunch crossing - All clusters - Data-MC comparison - data 2011, Pythia8 (eps)
PNGpng AllClus.png r1 manage 105.2 K 2011-10-21 - 20:50 UnknownUser Reconstructed primary vertices per bunch crossing - All clusters - Data-MC comparison - data 2011, Pythia8 (png)
Unknown file formateps AllGE3.eps r1 manage 801.2 K 2010-06-01 - 19:24 UnknownUser  
PNGpng AllGE3.png r1 manage 66.6 K 2010-06-01 - 19:24 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Alldepl.eps r1 manage 11.5 K 2012-04-10 - 13:06 UnknownUser Depletion depth - Data-MC (eps version)
PNGpng Alldepl.png r1 manage 29.5 K 2012-04-10 - 13:05 UnknownUser Depletion depth - Data-MC (png version)
Unknown file formateps AverageBC.eps r1 manage 9.3 K 2010-06-01 - 18:54 UnknownUser  
PNGpng AverageBC.png r1 manage 14.8 K 2010-06-01 - 18:54 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps AverageBC_v1.eps r1 manage 9.3 K 2010-06-01 - 21:00 UnknownUser  
PNGpng AverageBC_v1.png r1 manage 15.4 K 2010-06-01 - 21:00 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Boff_collisions_row_col_cor.eps r1 manage 53.4 K 2010-06-01 - 20:32 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Boff_collisions_row_col_cor.png r1 manage 31.4 K 2010-06-01 - 20:32 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Boff_collisions_row_col_cor_bw.eps r1 manage 53.6 K 2010-06-01 - 20:31 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Boff_collisions_row_col_cor_bw.png r1 manage 27.5 K 2010-06-01 - 20:31 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Boff_collisions_size_col_cor.eps r1 manage 60.4 K 2010-06-01 - 20:32 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Boff_collisions_size_col_cor.png r1 manage 32.0 K 2010-06-01 - 20:33 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Boff_collisions_size_col_cor_bw.eps r1 manage 60.6 K 2010-06-01 - 20:32 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Boff_collisions_size_col_cor_bw.png r1 manage 28.0 K 2010-06-01 - 20:32 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Boff_collisions_size_row_cor.eps r1 manage 68.4 K 2010-06-01 - 20:34 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Boff_collisions_size_row_cor.png r1 manage 33.7 K 2010-06-01 - 20:34 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Boff_collisions_size_row_cor_bw.eps r1 manage 68.7 K 2010-06-01 - 20:34 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Boff_collisions_size_row_cor_bw.png r1 manage 29.4 K 2010-06-01 - 20:34 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Boff_unpairedBCs_row_col_cor.eps r1 manage 51.5 K 2010-06-01 - 20:36 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Boff_unpairedBCs_row_col_cor.png r1 manage 31.8 K 2010-06-01 - 20:36 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Boff_unpairedBCs_row_col_cor_bw.eps r1 manage 51.7 K 2010-06-01 - 20:35 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Boff_unpairedBCs_row_col_cor_bw.png r1 manage 27.9 K 2010-06-01 - 20:35 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Boff_unpairedBCs_size_col_cor.eps r1 manage 55.5 K 2010-06-01 - 20:37 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Boff_unpairedBCs_size_col_cor.png r1 manage 32.2 K 2010-06-01 - 20:37 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Boff_unpairedBCs_size_col_cor_bw.eps r1 manage 55.7 K 2010-06-01 - 20:36 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Boff_unpairedBCs_size_col_cor_bw.png r1 manage 28.2 K 2010-06-01 - 20:36 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Boff_unpairedBCs_size_row_cor.eps r1 manage 55.4 K 2010-06-01 - 20:39 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Boff_unpairedBCs_size_row_cor.png r1 manage 31.1 K 2010-06-01 - 20:39 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Boff_unpairedBCs_size_row_cor_bw.eps r1 manage 55.6 K 2010-06-01 - 20:38 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Boff_unpairedBCs_size_row_cor_bw.png r1 manage 27.6 K 2010-06-01 - 20:38 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Bon_collisions_pixclus_eta_col.eps r1 manage 17.8 K 2010-06-01 - 20:39 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Bon_collisions_pixclus_eta_col.png r1 manage 19.4 K 2010-06-01 - 20:40 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Bon_collisions_row_col_cor.eps r1 manage 51.1 K 2010-06-01 - 20:40 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Bon_collisions_row_col_cor.png r1 manage 30.3 K 2010-06-01 - 20:41 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Bon_collisions_row_col_cor_bw.eps r1 manage 51.4 K 2010-06-01 - 20:40 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Bon_collisions_row_col_cor_bw.png r1 manage 26.9 K 2010-06-01 - 20:40 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Bon_collisions_size_col_cor.eps r1 manage 53.3 K 2010-06-01 - 20:43 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Bon_collisions_size_col_cor.png r1 manage 30.1 K 2010-06-01 - 20:43 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Bon_collisions_size_col_cor_bw.eps r1 manage 53.5 K 2010-06-01 - 20:42 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Bon_collisions_size_col_cor_bw.png r1 manage 27.1 K 2010-06-01 - 20:43 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Bon_collisions_size_row_cor.eps r1 manage 74.4 K 2010-06-01 - 20:44 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Bon_collisions_size_row_cor.png r1 manage 36.0 K 2010-06-01 - 20:44 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Bon_collisions_size_row_cor_bw.eps r1 manage 74.6 K 2010-06-01 - 20:43 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Bon_collisions_size_row_cor_bw.png r1 manage 31.1 K 2010-06-01 - 20:43 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Bon_collisions_trks_row_col_cor.eps r1 manage 22.2 K 2010-06-01 - 20:45 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Bon_collisions_trks_row_col_cor.png r1 manage 22.8 K 2010-06-01 - 20:45 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Bon_collisions_trks_row_col_cor_bw.eps r1 manage 22.4 K 2010-06-01 - 20:44 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Bon_collisions_trks_row_col_cor_bw.png r1 manage 22.0 K 2010-06-01 - 20:45 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Bon_collisions_trks_size_col_cor.eps r1 manage 24.1 K 2010-06-01 - 20:46 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Bon_collisions_trks_size_col_cor.png r1 manage 22.9 K 2010-06-01 - 20:46 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Bon_collisions_trks_size_col_cor_bw.eps r1 manage 24.3 K 2010-06-01 - 20:45 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Bon_collisions_trks_size_col_cor_bw.png r1 manage 22.0 K 2010-06-01 - 20:46 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Bon_collisions_trks_size_row_cor.eps r1 manage 26.8 K 2010-06-01 - 20:47 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Bon_collisions_trks_size_row_cor.png r1 manage 24.0 K 2010-06-01 - 20:47 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Bon_collisions_trks_size_row_cor_bw.eps r1 manage 27.0 K 2010-06-01 - 20:46 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Bon_collisions_trks_size_row_cor_bw.png r1 manage 22.6 K 2010-06-01 - 20:47 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Bon_unpairedBCs_pixclus_eta_col.eps r1 manage 20.6 K 2010-06-01 - 20:48 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Bon_unpairedBCs_pixclus_eta_col.png r1 manage 20.3 K 2010-06-01 - 20:48 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Bon_unpairedBCs_row_col_cor.eps r1 manage 36.0 K 2010-06-01 - 20:49 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Bon_unpairedBCs_row_col_cor.png r1 manage 26.9 K 2010-06-01 - 20:49 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Bon_unpairedBCs_row_col_cor_bw.eps r1 manage 36.2 K 2010-06-01 - 20:49 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Bon_unpairedBCs_row_col_cor_bw.png r1 manage 24.6 K 2010-06-01 - 20:49 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Bon_unpairedBCs_size_col_cor.eps r1 manage 36.4 K 2010-06-01 - 20:50 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Bon_unpairedBCs_size_col_cor.png r1 manage 26.9 K 2010-06-01 - 20:50 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Bon_unpairedBCs_size_col_cor_bw.eps r1 manage 36.6 K 2010-06-01 - 20:50 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Bon_unpairedBCs_size_col_cor_bw.png r1 manage 24.7 K 2010-06-01 - 20:50 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Bon_unpairedBCs_size_row_cor.eps r1 manage 42.5 K 2010-06-01 - 20:51 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Bon_unpairedBCs_size_row_cor.png r1 manage 27.7 K 2010-06-01 - 20:52 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Bon_unpairedBCs_size_row_cor_bw.eps r1 manage 42.7 K 2010-06-01 - 20:51 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Bon_unpairedBCs_size_row_cor_bw.png r1 manage 25.3 K 2010-06-01 - 20:51 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Both_LorentzAngle.eps r1 manage 16.2 K 2010-06-01 - 13:39 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Both_LorentzAngle.png r1 manage 18.8 K 2010-06-01 - 13:39 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps CdDistStavePos_-3_01_11_2012.eps r1 manage 22.0 K 2014-09-27 - 23:08 UnknownUser  
PNGpng CdDistStavePos_-3_01_11_2012.png r1 manage 217.1 K 2014-09-27 - 23:08 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps CdDistStavePos_-3_01_2013.eps r1 manage 22.7 K 2014-09-27 - 23:08 UnknownUser  
PNGpng CdDistStavePos_-3_01_2013.png r1 manage 263.8 K 2014-09-27 - 23:08 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps CdDistStavePos_-3_02_07_2012.eps r1 manage 20.7 K 2014-09-27 - 23:08 UnknownUser  
PNGpng CdDistStavePos_-3_02_07_2012.png r1 manage 185.0 K 2014-09-27 - 23:08 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps CdDistStavePos_-3_26_09_2012.eps r1 manage 21.6 K 2014-09-27 - 23:08 UnknownUser  
PNGpng CdDistStavePos_-3_26_09_2012.png r1 manage 209.8 K 2014-09-27 - 23:08 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps ChargeSharing2x.eps r1 manage 16.6 K 2010-06-01 - 18:19 UnknownUser  
PNGpng ChargeSharing2x.png r1 manage 97.3 K 2010-06-01 - 18:19 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps ChargeSharing2y.eps r1 manage 9.9 K 2010-06-01 - 18:19 UnknownUser  
PNGpng ChargeSharing2y.png r1 manage 74.8 K 2010-06-01 - 18:19 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps ChargeSharing3x.eps r1 manage 15.9 K 2010-06-01 - 18:20 UnknownUser  
PNGpng ChargeSharing3x.png r1 manage 94.2 K 2010-06-01 - 18:20 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps ClusAng.eps r1 manage 21.1 K 2011-10-21 - 20:45 UnknownUser Data-MC comparison of cluster size versus angle for 2011 data and Pythia8 (eps)
Unknown file formateps D3AS03M3_prelim.eps r1 manage 1091.1 K 2010-06-01 - 15:03 UnknownUser  
PNGpng D3AS03M3_prelim.png r1 manage 49.6 K 2010-06-01 - 15:03 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps D3AS03M6_prelim.eps r1 manage 963.3 K 2010-06-01 - 15:03 UnknownUser  
PNGpng D3AS03M6_prelim.png r1 manage 45.7 K 2010-06-01 - 15:02 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps D3AS04M6_prelim.eps r1 manage 1098.1 K 2010-06-01 - 15:02 UnknownUser  
PNGpng D3AS04M6_prelim.png r1 manage 49.8 K 2010-06-01 - 15:02 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Datadepl.eps r1 manage 10.0 K 2012-04-10 - 13:08 UnknownUser Depletion depth - Data (eps version)
PNGpng Datadepl.png r1 manage 25.7 K 2012-04-10 - 13:08 UnknownUser Depletion depth - Data (png version)
Unknown file formateps Efficiency.eps r1 manage 8.2 K 2010-06-01 - 14:45 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Efficiency.png r1 manage 14.0 K 2010-06-01 - 14:45 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Eta.png r1 manage 66.7 K 2011-10-21 - 20:47 UnknownUser Pixel Cluster size in eta - Data-MC comparison - data 2011, Pythia8 (png)
Unknown file formateps Etaprofile_cosmics.eps r1 manage 13.8 K 2010-06-01 - 18:20 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Etaprofile_cosmics.png r1 manage 19.0 K 2010-06-01 - 18:21 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps EtaprofileyResoVSeta_data.eps r1 manage 13.5 K 2010-06-01 - 18:21 UnknownUser  
PNGpng EtaprofileyResoVSeta_data.png r1 manage 17.8 K 2010-06-01 - 18:21 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps FitExampleeta2.eps r1 manage 13.9 K 2010-06-01 - 18:03 UnknownUser  
PNGpng FitExampleeta2.png r1 manage 15.6 K 2010-06-01 - 18:03 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps L1A_barrel_log.eps r1 manage 9.0 K 2010-06-01 - 18:54 UnknownUser  
PNGpng L1A_barrel_log.png r1 manage 14.9 K 2010-06-01 - 18:55 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps L1A_barrel_offTrack_log.eps r1 manage 8.0 K 2010-06-01 - 18:55 UnknownUser  
PNGpng L1A_barrel_offTrack_log.png r1 manage 14.2 K 2010-06-01 - 18:55 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps L1A_ec_log.eps r1 manage 9.1 K 2010-06-01 - 18:55 UnknownUser  
PNGpng L1A_ec_log.png r1 manage 15.0 K 2010-06-01 - 18:56 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps L1A_ec_offTrack_log.eps r1 manage 8.1 K 2010-06-01 - 18:56 UnknownUser  
PNGpng L1A_ec_offTrack_log.png r1 manage 14.2 K 2010-06-01 - 18:56 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps L1A_log.eps r1 manage 9.0 K 2010-06-01 - 18:56 UnknownUser  
PNGpng L1A_log.png r1 manage 14.5 K 2010-06-01 - 18:56 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps L1A_offTrack_log.eps r1 manage 7.9 K 2010-06-01 - 18:57 UnknownUser  
PNGpng L1A_offTrack_log.png r1 manage 13.8 K 2010-06-01 - 18:57 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps LateHits_bw.eps r1 manage 1258.8 K 2010-06-01 - 18:57 UnknownUser  
PNGpng LateHits_bw.png r1 manage 53.1 K 2010-06-01 - 18:59 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps LateHits_color.eps r1 manage 1204.5 K 2010-06-01 - 18:57 UnknownUser  
PNGpng LateHits_color.png r1 manage 54.9 K 2010-06-01 - 18:58 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Lorentz.png r1 manage 98.4 K 2011-10-21 - 20:44 UnknownUser Data-MC comparison of cluster size versus angle for 2011 data and Pythia8 (png)
Unknown file formateps LorentzDataVsSimBonOff.eps r1 manage 19.8 K 2009-12-17 - 13:11 UnknownUser  
PNGpng LorentzDataVsSimBonOff.png r1 manage 17.4 K 2009-12-17 - 13:10 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps MapEffECA.eps r1 manage 120.7 K 2010-06-01 - 15:04 UnknownUser  
PNGpng MapEffECA.png r1 manage 17.1 K 2010-06-01 - 15:01 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps NoiseRate.eps r2 r1 manage 11.2 K 2010-06-01 - 21:00 UnknownUser  
PNGpng NoiseRate.png r2 r1 manage 16.0 K 2010-06-01 - 21:01 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps Non_T0timed_Pixel_Module_r142193.eps r1 manage 21.5 K 2010-04-13 - 18:37 UnknownUser Not T0 timed module (eps version)
PNGpng Non_T0timed_Pixel_Module_r142193.png r1 manage 23.0 K 2010-04-13 - 18:36 UnknownUser Not T0 timed module (png version)
PNGpng Phi.png r1 manage 69.8 K 2011-10-21 - 20:48 UnknownUser Pixel Cluster size in phi - Data-MC comparison - data 2011, Pythia8 (png)
Unknown file formateps Phiprofile_cosmics.eps r1 manage 12.1 K 2010-06-01 - 18:22 UnknownUser  
PNGpng Phiprofile_cosmics.png r1 manage 19.3 K 2010-06-01 - 18:22 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps PhiprofilexResoVSphi_data.eps r1 manage 10.3 K 2010-06-01 - 18:22 UnknownUser  
PNGpng PhiprofilexResoVSphi_data.png r1 manage 15.2 K 2010-06-01 - 18:22 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps PixDeltaCol.eps r1 manage 15.9 K 2011-10-21 - 20:48 UnknownUser Pixel Cluster size in eta - Data-MC comparison - data 2011, Pythia8 (eps)
Unknown file formateps PixDeltaRow.eps r1 manage 17.5 K 2011-10-21 - 20:48 UnknownUser Pixel Cluster size in phi - Data-MC comparison - data 2011, Pythia8 (eps)
Unknown file formateps PixelLVL1A_SolOn.eps r1 manage 8.2 K 2009-12-17 - 13:10 UnknownUser  
PNGpng PixelLVL1A_SolOn.png r1 manage 16.0 K 2009-12-17 - 13:09 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps PlotTruncated_Final.eps r1 manage 14.5 K 2010-06-01 - 19:28 UnknownUser  
PNGpng PlotTruncated_Final.png r1 manage 18.6 K 2010-06-01 - 19:29 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps SynchErrors_208354_206369.eps r1 manage 73.0 K 2012-10-26 - 15:34 UnknownUser Synchronization errors in B-layer for runs 206369 and 208354
PNGpng SynchErrors_208354_206369.png r1 manage 13.1 K 2012-10-26 - 15:34 UnknownUser Synchronization errors in B-layer for runs 206369 and 208354
Unknown file formateps T0afterAdj.eps r1 manage 9.9 K 2010-06-01 - 18:58 UnknownUser  
PNGpng T0afterAdj.png r1 manage 13.6 K 2010-06-01 - 18:58 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps T0beforeAdj.eps r1 manage 9.6 K 2010-06-01 - 18:59 UnknownUser  
PNGpng T0beforeAdj.png r1 manage 13.8 K 2010-06-01 - 18:59 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps T0timed_Pixel_Module_r142193.eps r1 manage 18.0 K 2010-04-13 - 18:38 UnknownUser T0 timed module (eps version)
PNGpng T0timed_Pixel_Module_r142193.png r1 manage 20.0 K 2010-04-13 - 18:37 UnknownUser T0 timed module (png version)
Unknown file formateps TimewalkData.eps r1 manage 9.8 K 2010-06-01 - 18:59 UnknownUser  
PNGpng TimewalkData.png r1 manage 13.2 K 2010-06-01 - 19:00 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps TrackClus.eps r1 manage 274.8 K 2011-10-21 - 20:51 UnknownUser Reconstructed primary vertices per bunch crossing - On-track clusters - Data-MC comparison - data 2011, Pythia8 (eps)
PNGpng TrackClus.png r1 manage 103.3 K 2011-10-21 - 20:51 UnknownUser Reconstructed primary vertices per bunch crossing - On-track clusters - Data-MC comparison - data 2011, Pythia8 (png)
Unknown file formateps b1.eps r1 manage 1173.1 K 2010-06-01 - 19:25 UnknownUser  
PNGpng b1.png r1 manage 95.3 K 2010-06-01 - 19:25 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps b2.eps r1 manage 843.9 K 2010-06-01 - 19:25 UnknownUser  
PNGpng b2.png r1 manage 72.1 K 2010-06-01 - 19:26 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps b3.eps r1 manage 754.8 K 2010-06-01 - 19:26 UnknownUser  
PNGpng b3.png r1 manage 65.1 K 2010-06-01 - 19:26 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps b4.eps r1 manage 568.4 K 2010-06-01 - 19:27 UnknownUser  
PNGpng b4.png r1 manage 56.8 K 2010-06-01 - 19:26 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps b5.eps r1 manage 364.4 K 2010-06-01 - 19:27 UnknownUser  
PNGpng b5.png r1 manage 46.0 K 2010-06-01 - 19:27 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps b6.eps r1 manage 186.7 K 2010-06-01 - 19:27 UnknownUser  
PNGpng b6.png r1 manage 32.2 K 2010-06-01 - 19:28 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps barrelGE3.eps r1 manage 767.4 K 2010-06-01 - 19:28 UnknownUser  
PNGpng barrelGE3.png r1 manage 65.6 K 2010-06-01 - 19:28 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps dEdx_Cluster.eps r1 manage 14.3 K 2009-12-17 - 15:08 UnknownUser  
PNGpng dEdx_Cluster.png r1 manage 13.9 K 2009-12-17 - 15:08 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps dEdx_Qp.eps r1 manage 281.5 K 2009-12-17 - 13:15 UnknownUser  
PNGpng dEdx_Qp.png r1 manage 24.3 K 2009-12-17 - 13:14 UnknownUser  
PDFpdf depldepthvseta_allV_01_11_2012.pdf r1 manage 36.1 K 2014-09-28 - 19:07 UnknownUser  
PDFpdf depldepthvseta_allV_26_09_2012.pdf r1 manage 36.1 K 2014-09-28 - 19:07 UnknownUser  
PDFpdf depldepthvseta_allV_closeup_01_11_2012.pdf r1 manage 36.2 K 2014-09-28 - 19:07 UnknownUser  
PDFpdf depldepthvseta_allV_closeup_26_09_2012.pdf r1 manage 36.7 K 2014-09-28 - 19:07 UnknownUser  
PNGpng fitfunctionLorentz.png r1 manage 562.7 K 2010-06-01 - 13:32 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps norm_pixclus_col.eps r1 manage 20.5 K 2010-06-01 - 20:52 UnknownUser  
PNGpng norm_pixclus_col.png r1 manage 24.8 K 2010-06-01 - 20:53 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps norm_pixclus_col_zoom.eps r1 manage 12.9 K 2010-06-01 - 20:52 UnknownUser  
PNGpng norm_pixclus_col_zoom.png r1 manage 21.0 K 2010-06-01 - 20:52 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps norm_pixclus_row.eps r1 manage 26.9 K 2010-06-01 - 20:53 UnknownUser  
PNGpng norm_pixclus_row.png r1 manage 27.2 K 2010-06-01 - 20:54 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps norm_pixclus_row_zoom.eps r1 manage 12.5 K 2010-06-01 - 20:53 UnknownUser  
PNGpng norm_pixclus_row_zoom.png r1 manage 20.8 K 2010-06-01 - 20:53 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps res_RMS_eta_repro_MC.eps r1 manage 64.6 K 2011-05-11 - 21:22 UnknownUser RMS of local y residuals vs eta MC (eps)
PNGpng res_RMS_eta_repro_MC.png r1 manage 136.3 K 2011-05-11 - 21:23 UnknownUser RMS of local y resilduals vs eta MC
Unknown file formateps res_RMS_eta_repro_data.eps r1 manage 61.8 K 2011-05-11 - 21:21 UnknownUser RMS of local y residuals vs eta (eps)
PNGpng res_RMS_eta_repro_data.png r1 manage 133.0 K 2011-05-11 - 21:21 UnknownUser RMS of local y residuals vs eta
Unknown file formateps res_RMS_phi_repro_MC.eps r1 manage 57.9 K 2011-05-11 - 21:25 UnknownUser RMS of local x residuals vs phi MC (eps)
PNGpng res_RMS_phi_repro_MC.png r1 manage 111.9 K 2011-05-11 - 21:26 UnknownUser RMS of local x residuals vs phi MC
Unknown file formateps res_RMS_phi_repro_data.eps r1 manage 55.5 K 2011-05-11 - 21:23 UnknownUser RMS of local x residuals vs phi DATA (eps)
PNGpng res_RMS_phi_repro_data.png r1 manage 110.1 K 2011-05-11 - 21:24 UnknownUser RMS of local x residuals vs phi DATA (eps)
Unknown file formateps xClustersize_cosmics.eps r1 manage 82.9 K 2010-06-01 - 15:36 UnknownUser  
PNGpng xClustersize_cosmics.png r1 manage 16.7 K 2010-06-01 - 15:36 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps xClustersize_cosmics_BW.eps r1 manage 91.7 K 2010-06-01 - 15:36 UnknownUser  
PNGpng xClustersize_cosmics_BW.png r1 manage 20.4 K 2010-06-01 - 15:36 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps xClustersize_data.eps r1 manage 23.3 K 2010-06-01 - 15:35 UnknownUser  
PNGpng xClustersize_data.png r1 manage 15.2 K 2010-06-01 - 15:35 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps xClustersize_data_BW.eps r1 manage 30.9 K 2010-06-01 - 15:35 UnknownUser  
PNGpng xClustersize_data_BW.png r1 manage 19.7 K 2010-06-01 - 15:35 UnknownUser  
PNGpng xcycformula.png r1 manage 15.0 K 2010-06-01 - 18:03 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps yClustersize_cosmics.eps r1 manage 20.9 K 2010-06-01 - 17:55 UnknownUser  
PNGpng yClustersize_cosmics.png r1 manage 15.6 K 2010-06-01 - 17:54 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps yClustersize_cosmics_BW.eps r1 manage 32.4 K 2010-06-01 - 17:56 UnknownUser  
PNGpng yClustersize_cosmics_BW.png r1 manage 17.2 K 2010-06-01 - 17:56 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps yClustersize_data.eps r1 manage 20.7 K 2010-06-01 - 17:54 UnknownUser  
PNGpng yClustersize_data.png r1 manage 13.9 K 2010-06-01 - 17:53 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formateps yClustersize_data_BW.eps r1 manage 30.4 K 2010-06-01 - 17:54 UnknownUser  
PNGpng yClustersize_data_BW.png r1 manage 20.9 K 2010-06-01 - 17:54 UnknownUser  
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r63 < r62 < r61 < r60 < r59 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r63 - 2018-10-26 - unknown
 
    • 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 &© 2008-2018 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback