|
|
Cabrera, M. E., Casas, J. A., Mitsou, V. A., Ruiz de Austri, R., & Terron, J. (2012). Histogram comparison tools for the search of new physics at LHC. Application to the CMSSM. J. High Energy Phys., 04(4), 133–27pp.
Abstract: We propose a rigorous and effective way to compare experimental and theoretical histograms, incorporating the different sources of statistical and systematic uncertainties. This is a useful tool to extract as much information as possible from the comparison between experimental data with theoretical simulations, optimizing the chances of identifying New Physics at the LHC. We illustrate this by showing how a search in the CMSSM parameter space, using Bayesian techniques, can effectively find the correct values of the CMSSM parameters by comparing histograms of events with multijets + missing transverse momentum displayed in the effective-mass variable. The procedure is in fact very efficient to identify the true supersymmetric model, in the case supersymmetry is really there and accessible to the LHC.
|
|
|
|
Rivard, M. J., Granero, D., Perez-Calatayud, J., & Ballester, F. (2010). Influence of photon energy spectra from brachytherapy sources on Monte Carlo simulations of kerma and dose rates in water and air. Med. Phys., 37(2), 869–876.
Abstract: Methods: For Ir-192, I-125, and Pd-103, the authors considered from two to five published spectra. Spherical sources approximating common brachytherapy sources were assessed. Kerma and dose results from GEANT4, MCNP5, and PENELOPE-2008 were compared for water and air. The dosimetric influence of Ir-192, I-125, and Pd-103 spectral choice was determined. Results: For the spectra considered, there were no statistically significant differences between kerma or dose results based on Monte Carlo code choice when using the same spectrum. Water-kerma differences of about 2%, 2%, and 0.7% were observed due to spectrum choice for Ir-192, I-125, and Pd-103, respectively (independent of radial distance), when accounting for photon yield per Bq. Similar differences were observed for air-kerma rate. However, their ratio (as used in the dose-rate constant) did not significantly change when the various photon spectra were selected because the differences compensated each other when dividing dose rate by air-kerma strength. Conclusions: Given the standardization of radionuclide data available from the National Nuclear Data Center (NNDC) and the rigorous infrastructure for performing and maintaining the data set evaluations, NNDC spectra are suggested for brachytherapy simulations in medical physics applications.
|
|
|
|
ATLAS Collaboration(Abat, E. et al), Bernabeu Verdu, J., Castillo Gimenez, V., Costa, M. J., Escobar, C., Ferrer, A., et al. (2011). A layer correlation technique for pion energy calibration at the 2004 ATLAS Combined Beam Test. J. Instrum., 6, P06001–35pp.
Abstract: A new method for calibrating the hadron response of a segmented calorimeter is developed and successfully applied to beam test data. It is based on a principal component analysis of energy deposits in the calorimeter layers, exploiting longitudinal shower development information to improve the measured energy resolution. Corrections for invisible hadronic energy and energy lost in dead material in front of and between the calorimeters of the ATLAS experiment were calculated with simulated Geant4 Monte Carlo events and used to reconstruct the energy of pions impinging on the calorimeters during the 2004 Barrel Combined Beam Test at the CERN H8 area. For pion beams with energies between 20 GeV and 180 GeV, the particle energy is reconstructed within 3% and the energy resolution is improved by between 11% and 25% compared to the resolution at the electromagnetic scale.
|
|
|
|
ATLAS Collaboration(Aaboud, M. et al), Alvarez Piqueras, D., Aparisi Pozo, J. A., Bailey, A. J., Barranco Navarro, L., Cabrera Urban, S., et al. (2019). Electron and photon energy calibration with the ATLAS detector using 2015-2016 LHC proton-proton collision data. J. Instrum., 14, P03017–60pp.
Abstract: This paper presents the electron and photon energy calibration obtained with the ATLAS detector using about 36 fb(-1) of LHC proton-proton collision data recorded at root s = 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016. The different calibration steps applied to the data and the optimization of the reconstruction of electron and photon energies are discussed. The absolute energy scale is set using a large sample of Z boson decays into electron-positron pairs. The systematic uncertainty in the energy scale calibration varies between 0.03% to 0.2% in most of the detector acceptance for electrons with transverse momentum close to 45 GeV. For electrons with transverse momentum of 10 GeV the typical uncertainty is 0.3% to 0.8% and it varies between 0.25% and 1% for photons with transverse momentum around 60 GeV. Validations of the energy calibration with J/psi -> e(+)e(-) decays and radiative Z boson decays are also presented.
|
|
|
|
ATLAS Collaboration(Aad, G. et al), Aikot, A., Amos, K. R., Aparisi Pozo, J. A., Bailey, A. J., Bouchhar, N., et al. (2024). Electron and photon energy calibration with the ATLAS detector using LHC Run 2 data. J. Instrum., 19(2), P02009–58pp.
Abstract: This paper presents the electron and photon energy calibration obtained with the ATLAS detector using 140 fb-1 of LHC proton -proton collision data recorded at -Js = 13 TeV between 2015 and 2018. Methods for the measurement of electron and photon energies are outlined, along with the current knowledge of the passive material in front of the ATLAS electromagnetic calorimeter. The energy calibration steps are discussed in detail, with emphasis on the improvements introduced in this paper. The absolute energy scale is set using a large sample of Z -boson decays into electron -positron pairs, and its residual dependence on the electron energy is used for the first time to further constrain systematic uncertainties. The achieved calibration uncertainties are typically 0.05% for electrons from resonant Z -boson decays, 0.4% at ET – 10 GeV, and 0.3% at ET – 1 TeV; for photons at ET <^>' 60 GeV, they are 0.2% on average. This is more than twice as precise as the previous calibration. The new energy calibration is validated using .11tfr -, ee and radiative Z -boson decays.
|
|
