Operational experience, improvements, and performance of the CDF Run II silicon vertex detector
Authors:
T. Aaltonen,
S. Behari,
A. Boveia,
B. Brau,
G. Bolla,
D. Bortoletto,
C. Calancha,
S. Carron,
S. Cihangir,
M. Corbo,
D. Clark,
B. Di Ruzza,
R. Eusebi,
J. P. Fernandez,
J. C. Freeman,
J. E. Garcia,
M. Garcia-Sciveres,
D. Glenzinski,
O. Gonzalez,
S. Grinstein,
M. Hartz,
M. Herndon,
C. Hill,
A. Hocker,
U. Husemann
, et al. (35 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
The Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) pursues a broad physics program at Fermilab's Tevatron collider. Between Run II commissioning in early 2001 and the end of operations in September 2011, the Tevatron delivered 12 fb-1 of integrated luminosity of p-pbar collisions at sqrt(s)=1.96 TeV. Many physics analyses undertaken by CDF require heavy flavor tagging with large charged particle tracking acc…
▽ More
The Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) pursues a broad physics program at Fermilab's Tevatron collider. Between Run II commissioning in early 2001 and the end of operations in September 2011, the Tevatron delivered 12 fb-1 of integrated luminosity of p-pbar collisions at sqrt(s)=1.96 TeV. Many physics analyses undertaken by CDF require heavy flavor tagging with large charged particle tracking acceptance. To realize these goals, in 2001 CDF installed eight layers of silicon microstrip detectors around its interaction region. These detectors were designed for 2--5 years of operation, radiation doses up to 2 Mrad (0.02 Gy), and were expected to be replaced in 2004. The sensors were not replaced, and the Tevatron run was extended for several years beyond its design, exposing the sensors and electronics to much higher radiation doses than anticipated. In this paper we describe the operational challenges encountered over the past 10 years of running the CDF silicon detectors, the preventive measures undertaken, and the improvements made along the way to ensure their optimal performance for collecting high quality physics data. In addition, we describe the quantities and methods used to monitor radiation damage in the sensors for optimal performance and summarize the detector performance quantities important to CDF's physics program, including vertex resolution, heavy flavor tagging, and silicon vertex trigger performance.
△ Less
Submitted 3 October, 2013; v1 submitted 14 January, 2013;
originally announced January 2013.
Semi-Supervised Anomaly Detection - Towards Model-Independent Searches of New Physics
Authors:
Mikael Kuusela,
Tommi Vatanen,
Eric Malmi,
Tapani Raiko,
Timo Aaltonen,
Yoshikazu Nagai
Abstract:
Most classification algorithms used in high energy physics fall under the category of supervised machine learning. Such methods require a training set containing both signal and background events and are prone to classification errors should this training data be systematically inaccurate for example due to the assumed MC model. To complement such model-dependent searches, we propose an algorithm…
▽ More
Most classification algorithms used in high energy physics fall under the category of supervised machine learning. Such methods require a training set containing both signal and background events and are prone to classification errors should this training data be systematically inaccurate for example due to the assumed MC model. To complement such model-dependent searches, we propose an algorithm based on semi-supervised anomaly detection techniques, which does not require a MC training sample for the signal data. We first model the background using a multivariate Gaussian mixture model. We then search for deviations from this model by fitting to the observations a mixture of the background model and a number of additional Gaussians. This allows us to perform pattern recognition of any anomalous excess over the background. We show by a comparison to neural network classifiers that such an approach is a lot more robust against misspecification of the signal MC than supervised classification. In cases where there is an unexpected signal, a neural network might fail to correctly identify it, while anomaly detection does not suffer from such a limitation. On the other hand, when there are no systematic errors in the training data, both methods perform comparably.
△ Less
Submitted 16 April, 2012; v1 submitted 14 December, 2011;
originally announced December 2011.
