Comments to TB paper, version 28.1.2009
1. Section 3.1.1 (LV): "The operation was adequate for the test beam but would be unsuitable
in the ATLAS environment". Ana suggested to add "(space constraints, magnetic field, ...)"
TD: I suggest to ACCEPT this comment
JEP: Well, I don’t think one can add such vague references (including ... ). I’d say it’s better
not to get into explanations at all. We might say the supplies were “adequate for the test
beam but were not designed for the ATLAS environment.”
ACCEPT Jim's point
2. Section 3.1.3 (cooling): compress the references, leave only [10],[14]
TD: already agreed on previous meeting, but still to be implemented
Finally done
3. Give the Cs life-time in Section 3.5.
MCS: Yes, but I would give the energy of the Cs gamma-ray – I suggest the following
replacement: “137Cs gamma-source” -> “137Cs γ-source (E γ = 0.662 MeV, t1/2 y = 30.2 y)”
Done. Corresponding change also in page 21, where we don't need to mentioned the
half-life again.
4. page 23, second half of the top paragraph:

1%/cm → 1 to 2%/cm (TD: must be consistent with info given later in Section 4.3.2)

"As will be described below, the effect has also been confirmed in studies with a
muon beam at 90 degrees as well as for muons in projective geometries. Since the
muon beam..... final correction factors."
TD: We don't make any point in projective muon part on this subject. In fact the
projective muon results are consistent with the weights derived at 90 degrees, but I
would not call it "confirmed". On the other hand, we show convincing arguments
with 90 degrees electrons.... I suggest the following wording:
"As will be described below, the effect has also been confirmed in studies with beam
particles, in particular with muons at 90 degrees. Since the muon beam measurement
uses the full calorimeter configuration and is very precise it has been used for the
final correction factors (see Section 4.3.2)"
JP: OK
Both changes applied.
5. page 23, end of 2nd paragraph: "... use is made version 8.3 of GEANT4".
TD: "use is made of version 8.3 of GEANT4" ??
JP: Yes, this correction is needed.
Change done.
6. top of page 24: "... its relatively high photoelectron yield is of great help in detecting
isolated muons"
TD: I suggest to add a reference to Section 4.3.4, where we discuss projective muons.
No, leave it as it is
7. In the middle of page 24 replace “for 180 GeV muons [25].” with “for 180 GeV particles
[25].”
TD: Claudio, apparently refers to electrons, but this is misleading....
I would even discard the number (180 GeV), since it was actually measured for 150
GeV in that paper. This would avoid to go into details how the e/mu ratio scales with energy.
MCS: If the muon energy is 150 GeV, let us correct 180 to 150… but is emu = 0.91 at 150
GeV?
TD: The problem is that actual value of e/mu depends not only on energy, but also on how
the signal is defined. It is different e.g. for MOP and truncated mean. Also MC comes into
the game.... Since this is not completely clear, I would keep the original value of e/mu=0.91
that is consistently used in light yield and muon part of the paper.
JP: I guess we need to state the value of e/mu appropriate to the the pe study which used
180 GeV muons.
Solution: use "... applying to this case [25]." instead of "... for 180 GeV muons [25]."
8. page 26, penultimate sentence of the last paragraph in Section 4.1: "... while extended barrel
modules were instrumented with tiles having lower light yield"
TD: I suggest to include Ref. [47] at the end of the above sentence (this is the note on Tilecal
optics instrumentation)
JP: OK.
Reference added.
9. page 32, end of 2nd full paragraph printed in bold ("Altogether, the local....")
TD: I am not happy yet with the statement I've introduced here. Maybe we should move 2nd
and 3rd sentence of the subsequent paragraph to this place to make clear that these local
variations, as mapped with Cs, amount to 5% (B) and 6% (EB) respectively ?
JP: I’m not puzzled about saying “at the level of 5% (6%).” If we think the difference
between 5% and 6% is a real effect then our resolution is better than about 0.5% and is
surely better than “at the level of.” Why not just say “... an RMS resolution of 5% (6%) ... .”
Solution: "at the level of" is dropped. The rest stays as it is (?)
10. page 34, end of the very first paragraph: "... in the section on results with muons."
TD: Shall we explicitly say Section 4.3.2 ? For instance: ".... in the section on results with
muons (4.3.2)."
JP: Fine.
In last sentence of first paragraph of Sec. 4.2.5. I’d change “at any angle” to “over a range
of angles.”
Both changes applied.
11. section 4.3.4, page 45. We don't say anything about the EM scale in projective muon data
TD: Maybe we should be explicit here. What about adding the following statement in the
beginning of last paragraph, page 45:
"The applied EM scale includes the overall scale factor C=1.05 pC/GeV and the correction
factors in radial compartments described above."
JP: OK.
Applied.
12. End of p.51/beginning of p.52: Corrections for this effect … in the figure.  The responses
corrected for this effect ….
TD: I would also change this wording as suggested by Tancredi, but then we might get into
another trouble:
"The responses corrected for this effect and for the admixture of pions and protons in these
data are also shown in the figure." My point is that data ARE NOT CORRECTED for
pion/proton admixture, we show hadrons. Instead, MC pion results are corrected for pi/p
(I.e. scaled down)
JP: Yes we used “hadrons” in the caption to avoid the wrong conclusion. I think Tancredi
believed the earlier caption that pion results were shown.
In addition, I see possible problem in the next sentence, that says: "The leakage corrections
come from the studies in the 90deg configuration [39] and from Monte Carlo calculations"..
I think it caused confusion, I would eliminate the second part about MC, I believe Margar's
corrections are data-based.
JP: I thought the point was that two independent sources for this correction agreed. It may
not matter, however, since the correction is so small.
Solution: eliminate the statement on pion/proton admixture, since both data and MC
show in fact response of pions and protons. Eliminate also the statement on MC
calculations.
13. page 55, last paragraph: I realized I forgot to include a statement on the noise impact on the
resolution fit (c.f Tomas' slides shown on previous meeting, noise is completely negligible)
TD: Add the sentence just after the quoted values of a, b: "The noise contribution appears
negligible at all energies, therefore no such term was considered in the fit." Put in in the text
or a footnote ??
JP: I’d put it in the text since it’s worthwhile pointing out.
Solution: put the above statement in the text
14.
Conclusions:
1. remove "described above" from beginning of 3rd paragraph
JP: The reason to keep it is that not all readers will have worked through the paper from
page 1. Some will start with the conclusions or the figures, looking for the important points.
It’s not obvious that this term is defined earlier in the paper.
OK, let's keep it as it is.
2. page 58, 3rd full paragraph: remove "due to the so-called transition effect"
JP: I agree.
Removed.
3. page 58, last paragraph: remove "usual" from usual sum in quadrature...
JP: Fine.
Removed.
4. page 59, top: remove or rewrite: "it should be stressed that the response variations seen with
electrons.." see earlier comment by Tancredi on the angular response
5. page 59, 2nd paragraph: remove: "as explained in detail earlier"
JP: Fine.
Removed.
6. page 59, 2nd paragraph: add the following sentence in the end: "This correction (1% - 8%)
will also be applied in ATLAS
JP: OK.
Added.
7. page 59, penultimate paragraph: "No weighting scheme was applied" Not needed, or needs
to be explained.
JP: I agree. It’s not clear what is being referred to. I’d remove it for simplicity.
Removed.
8. page 60, very top: "This module-to-module variations... to be associated to local
variations.." Still valid ?
TD: I would drop this statement from conclusions. We fully understand the 2.4% RMS
spread foudn with electrons, but not 100% sure about 1.5% for pions (c.f. my presentation in
Rio). Also, not only local variations contribute, but also CIS, integrators, Cs.
Accepted, statement to be dropped from the text
9. page 60, 1st full paragraph: "… e/h=1.356 in agreement wit previous TileCal results."
Actually, e/h refer to a parametrisation and so far another one has been used. So, it does not
make much sense to claim agreement here.
TD: first, we have to quote the new e/h... Then, Tancredi is probably right that this
comparison mixes Groom's and Wigmans' parametrization. What about dropping the part "in
agreement with previous Tilecal results and", leaving only "in line with expectations." ??
JP: We probably need to discuss this a bit.
10. Same paragraph: remove "usual"
JP: Yes.
Sentence modified as agreed during the phone-meeting,
11. Still the same paragraph, we have to quote updated resolution: a = (52.9+/-0.9)%/GeV**1/2
Updated.
12. Last paragraph – is that really needed ?
TD: I see nothing wrong with this paragraph, our intention was to advertise other important
results that we obtained and that are not mentioned in this paper.
JP: Were these other results obtained with this same apparatus and data sets described in this
paper? Were they not mainly from prototype modules? If so, they are not very relevant to
this paper.
Abstract:
1. In the sentence "The response to muons entering in the ATLAS projective geometry showed
an RMS variation of 2.5% for 91 runs over a range of rapidities and modules." we should
replace "runs" with e.g. "towers", "different impact points" or so... „
JP: Maybe . .. 91 measurements over a range of ...“
Ok, implemented.
2. shall we mention e/h in abstract ?
TD: I am not sure whether we shall quote e/h here, since this implies also saying which fit
was used to obtain it.
On the other hand, we may replace the statement "The response to hadrons normalized to
incident beam energy showed an {8\,\%} increase between 10~GeV and 350~GeV, fully
consistent with expectations for a non-compensating calorimeter." with something more
specific?
JP: I have to say I prefer the verbal description to the use of e/h which only a fraction of the
readers will know about in detail. Those looking for more detail can find it in the text.
LEAVE IT AS IT IS NOW