CSC Calibration Workflow

This page documents the work to be done in the first few months of 2009.

The following gross areas define the work flow:

1. test pulsing programs & production of constants
2. validation of constants and production of payload & loading into data bases
3. validation of calibration with resolution studies
4. improvement of offline reconstruction and simulation

In my estimation,

1. test pulsing is fine
2. validation of constants, etc. requires work
3. resolution studies are weak, even non-existent
4. offline reconstruction needs to be updated and improved

We have O(6 months) to finish everything.

Work Flow

1. test pulsing programs & production of constants
   1. question: is there any more work to be done on the test pulsing programs? [expect no]
   2. question: are there any more issues with the calculation of constants? [expect no]
   3. to do: what are the differences w.r.t. the old constants from the MTCC era?
   4. to do: ensure sufficient accuracy in ascii files
   5. to do: make sure results are backed up and allow for retrieval in case of problems
   6. to do: this is a good time to write a thorough document on this part.
2. validation of constants and production of payload & loading into data bases
   1. to do: what does Oana do with the input files from Victor? What are the manipulations?
   2. to do: what values do we expect? This requires significant homework.
   3. to do: technically speaking, how should we ensure that the values are valid? Compare to previous set? Set a priori windows?
   4. to do: technically speaking, how do we "correct" random values coming from Victor? Insert an arbitrary value? The previous value? This may depend on which constant we are considering.
   5. to do: what kind of tracking of constants to we have in hand, and what do we need?
   6. question: once an approved set of constants has been produced, probably through selective modification of Victor's input, what are the additional steps and procedure to produce a candidate payload?
   7. question: how does that payload get loaded into the data base?
   8. question: what checks can we do to verify the payload after it has been put into the data base?
3. validation of calibration with resolution studies
   1. to do: define two methods for assessing the resolution and establish the design goal.
   2. question/to do: what is the impact of each of our calibration constants on the point resolution?
   3. to do: finish dedicated program for measuring the resolution
   4. to do: establish benchmark tests (data and MC)
   5. question: how far are we from our goal?
4. improvement of offline reconstruction and simulation
   1. to do: document what we have now. Stoyan has begun this process.
   2. to do: find out what Stan was aiming for. Are there important differences?
   3. question: why don't we use the noise matrix?
   4. question: are we using the cross-talk information in the right way?
   5. question: how good is the hit simulation?

Planned Calibration Payloads

We foresee four payloads:

1. CSCBadChambers_none_KillAllME42 kill all chambers in ME4/2, no other chambers
2. CSCBadChambers_none_KillNoME42 kill no chambers in ME4/2, nor no other chambers
3. CSCBadChambers_none_FiveLiveME42 kill all chambers in ME4/2 except for the five chambers we expect to install this spring
4. CSCBadChambers_CRAFT_KillAllME42 kill all chambers in ME4/2, and chambers in the rest of the detector as observed during CRAFT

Map from the existing payloads to these new names:

-- MichaelSchmitt - 21 Jan 2009