jump to navigation

Proofread my QCHS7 proceedings paper – part 1 October 30, 2006

Posted by dorigo in language, personal, physics, science.

For you only, here is the first part of a proceedings article I am writing for the QCHS7 conference (“Quarks confinement and the hadron structure”), which I attended last September at the Azores islands.

The article discusses standard model tests at the Tevatron, and is aply titled “Standard Model tests at the Tevatron”.

If you have a chance, proofread it and send me any errors, typos, or bad sentences…



The CDF and DO collaborations at the Tevatron have been producing exquisite precision measurements on high-P_T physics with their large datasets of p-antip collisions.
The Higgs boson is being sought in all available channels, and the Tevatron experiments will have a chance to discover it before LHC starts operating. The top quark is being studied in great detail, and a precision of 1.2\% in the measurement of its mass has been achieved. In this brief report an overview of the most interesting topics will be given.

The facilities

The Tevatron accelerator has been subjected at the turn of the millennium to a massive upgrade, with the construction of an entirely new ring, the Main Injector, and several improvements in the facility producing and storing antiprotons — the most challenging part of the whole project. The collider has recently surpassed the peak luminosity of 2.3 x 10^32 /(cm^2 s). An integrated luminosity of 2.0 /fb has been delivered to CDF and DO so far, and 5 to 8 inverse femtobarns are expected by end of 2009. Up-to-date information on the performance of the machine can be found in [1].

An overview of the CDF and D\O\ detectors for Run II at the Tevatron can be found in [2]. In what follows their most important features for high-P_T physics are briefly mentioned.

Both detectors are all-purpose, near-hermetic devices consisting of a tracker immersed in a solenoidal field and an outer shell of calorimeters and muon chambers.

In DO an excellent system of silicon microstrip detectors has been installed in Run II. Six barrels of silicon sensors organized in four concentrical layers provide coverage for central tracks, while a total of sixteen silicon disks allow reconstruction of large rapidity tracks. A similar set of seven barrels of silicon strips is organized in the core of CDF.

Outside of the silicon barrels CDF features a large gas tracking chamber, and DO has a compact scintillating fiber tracker. Both allow measurement of track momenta with better than percent accuracy for P_T<100 GeV.
Associated hits in the silicon strips allow the determination of track
impact parameter with accuracy sufficient to reconstruct B-hadron decay and enable 45% efficient tagging of b-quark originated jets with fake rates well below 1%.

Calorimeters are divided in a inner electromagnetic and an outer hadronic section. Electrons within the pseudorapidity interval |\eta|<2.0 are identified with high purity and efficiency, with a resolution of 14%/E^0.5 in CDF and 17%/E^0.5 in DO.
Hadronic jets are reconstructed with resolutions better than 100%/E^0.5.
Muon chambers cover the rapidity region |\eta|<1.5 in CDF and |\eta|<2.0 in DO.

Both detectors have a sophisticated trigger system that reduces the 2.5MHz collision rate to about 100 Hz of events written to tape. Of particular relevance for the present review is the Silicon Vertex Tracker (SVT), a device designed and built in CDF to achieve precise online tracking.
The SVT identifies track candidates by comparing hit patterns to a predetermined array of possible roads stored in associative memory banks. A linearized R-phi fit of track hits in the silicon layers provides track momentum and impact parameter with precision close to that attainable offline in less than 10 us, thanks to a highly parallelized architecture. This allows the collection of datasets based on the presence of b-quarks in the final state, enhancing the B-physics program of CDF but also providing higher efficiency for several Higgs boson signatures.


Ok that is it for now, a second piece is coming soon…




1. Helge - October 30, 2006

Hi Tom!

Some stuff, I noticed:
1.) An overview of the CDF and D\O\ detectors for Run II at the Tevatron can be found in [2].
Why “D\O\”?

2. What is |\eta|? Some relativistic factor would be my guess….

3. What is 10 us? Probably 10^(-N) s but what is N?


2. Markk - October 31, 2006

concentrical ought to be concentric to my eye.

us would be microseconds the u is a mu i.e. 10^(-6) seconds

3. Andrea Giammanco - October 31, 2006

In my opinion, when you first mention the integrated luminosity accumulated on tape so far, you should take the occasion to remind that this doesn’t mean that all those data have already been processed and analyzed.
Of course you then declare, result by result, what is the integrated luminosity used for that particular analysis, but it’s good to immediately inform (or remind) the reader that there is an unavoidable hiatus between taking data and presenting results, since this hiatus is in this case counterintuitively long (results with 1 fb-1, or even less, when 2 fb-1 are on tape…)

4. Andrea Giammanco - October 31, 2006

and also I don’t like “exquisite”, but this is a matter of personal style and taste 😉

5. dorigo - October 31, 2006

Thank you Helge…
D\O\ is the way Latex wants you to write DO… I took off the latex commands from the text above but that one escaped me.

\eta is the greek letter eta, which is pseudorapidity, or the logarithm of the tangent of theta/2, where theta is the angle of a particle wrt the beam direction. It is a variable which transforms linearly for lorentz boosts along the beam axis, so that if you have a coordinate frame moving along z wrt another, all particles seen with a given eta in frame 1 are seen in frame two with eta’=eta+constant.
I should have defined it in the text, I will change it.

um stands for micrometers… I have to remember to put back the correct latex command…


6. dorigo - October 31, 2006

Hi Markk,

thank you for giving a look… concentric, well spotted!


7. dorigo - October 31, 2006

Hi Andrea,

thank you for taking your time to read this.

Ok, I take your suggestion and I will add a line explaining the difference between what we have on tape and what gets used… It’s a good idea.

As for exquisite, I agree, it is not really a word used often in scientific papers. Any suggestions ?


8. Andrea Giammanco - October 31, 2006

uhm… remarkable?
(all the native english speakers around: what would you use? I’m interested too, for the next time I will run out of words in an introduction :))

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: