% $Header: /cvsroot/latex-beamer/latex-beamer/solutions/generic-talks/generic-ornate-15min-45min.en.tex,v 1.5 2007/01/28 20:48:23 tantau Exp $

\documentclass[red,compress]{beamer}

% This file is a solution template for:

% - Giving a talk on some subject.
% - The talk is between 15min and 45min long.
% - Style is ornate.



% Copyright 2004 by Till Tantau <tantau@users.sourceforge.net>.
%
% In principle, this file can be redistributed and/or modified under
% the terms of the GNU Public License, version 2.
%
% However, this file is supposed to be a template to be modified
% for your own needs. For this reason, if you use this file as a
% template and not specifically distribute it as part of a another
% package/program, I grant the extra permission to freely copy and
% modify this file as you see fit and even to delete this copyright
% notice. 


\mode<presentation>
{
  %\usetheme{Warsaw}
  \usetheme{Warsaw}
  %\usecolortheme{lily}

  % or ...
  %\useoutertheme{split}

  \setbeamercovered{transparent}
  %\pagestyle{plain}

  % or whatever (possibly just delete it)
}

\usepackage[english]{babel}
% or whatever
\usepackage[dvips]{}

\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
% or whatever

\usepackage{times}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}

\usepackage{wasysym}

\input{../colours.tex}

% Or whatever. Note that the encoding and the font should match. If T1
% does not look nice, try deleting the line with the fontenc.

\begingroup
	\def\facewith#1{$\bigcirc\mskip-13.3mu{}^{..}
	\mskip-11mu\scriptscriptstyle#1\ $}
	\xdef\frowny{\facewith\frown}
	\xdef\smiley{\facewith\smile}
	\xdef\neutry{\facewith-}
\endgroup

\title%[short title] % (optional, use only with long paper titles)
{MAPS Report}

\subtitle
{Work-package 3} % (optional)

\author[A.-M. Magnan] % (optional, use only with lots of authors)
{P. Dauncey, A.-M. Magnan, J. Ballin, M. Noy\inst{1}\\
 \and 	Y. Mikami, O. Miller, V. Rajovi\'{c}, N. Watson, J. Wilson\inst{2}\\
 \and 	J. Crooks, M. Stanitzki, K. Stefanov, R. Turchetta, M. Tyndel, G. Villani\inst{3}}
% - Use the \inst{?} command only if the authors have different
%   affiliation.

\institute[ICL,UB,RAL] % (optional, but mostly needed)
{
\inst{1}
Imperial College London
\and
\inst{2}
University of Birmingham
\and
\inst{3}
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
}

\date[Calice-UK Birmingham, 17/04/2008] % (optional)
{17/04/2008, Calice-UK Birmingham}

\subject{Talks}
% This is only inserted into the PDF information catalog. Can be left
% out. 



% If you have a file called "university-logo-filename.xxx", where xxx
% is a graphic format that can be processed by latex or pdflatex,
% resp., then you can add a logo as follows:

% \pgfdeclareimage[height=0.5cm]{university-logo}{university-logo-filename}
% \logo{\pgfuseimage{university-logo}}



% Delete this, if you do not want the table of contents to pop up at
% the beginning of each subsection:
\AtBeginSection[]
{
  \begin{frame}<beamer>{Outline}
    \tableofcontents[currentsection]%,currentsubsection]
  \end{frame}
}


% If you wish to uncover everything in a step-wise fashion, uncomment
% the following command: 

%\beamerdefaultoverlayspecification{<+->}


\begin{document}

\begin{frame}
  \titlepage
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Outline}
  \tableofcontents
  % You might wish to add the option [pausesections]
\end{frame}


% Since this a solution template for a generic talk, very little can
% be said about how it should be structured. However, the talk length
% of between 15min and 45min and the theme suggest that you stick to
% the following rules:  

% - Exactly two or three sections (other than the summary).
% - At *most* three subsections per section.
% - Talk about 30s to 2min per frame. So there should be between about
%   15 and 30 frames, all told.

\section*{Overview}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{\textcolor{green}{What} does \textcolor{orange}{MAPS} stands for ?}
  % - A title should summarize the slide in an understandable fashion
  %   for anyone how does not follow everything on the slide itself.

  \begin{itemize}
  \item \textcolor{red}{M}onolithic \textcolor{green}{A}ctive \textcolor{orange}{P}ixel \textcolor{blue}{S}ensor:
     \begin{itemize}
     \item CMOS technology, \textcolor{green}{in-pixel} logic: pixel=sensor+readout electronics,
     \item 50x50 $\mu$m$^2$ : reduces probability of multiple hit per pixel,
     \item 4 diodes per pixel: collection of charge mainly by \textcolor{red}{diffusion},
     \item 0.18 $\mu$m \textcolor{blue}{INMAPS} process to optimise charge collection.
     \item \textcolor{orange}{binary} readout: in-pixel comparator with \textcolor{red}{adjustable threshold},
     \item each pixel can be \textcolor{green}{masked} individually,
     \end{itemize}
  \item MAPS-ECAL : \textcolor{blue}{swap-in} solution to the standard Si-W ECAL.
  \end{itemize}

\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{\textcolor{green}{Why} for a \textcolor{orange}{calorimeter} ?}

  \begin{itemize}
   \item \smiley \textcolor{red}{high granularity} : 

     \begin{itemize}
      \item better position resolution $\rightarrow$ potentially better \textcolor{green}{PFA} performances,\\
      \item or detector \textcolor{red}{more compact} $\rightarrow$ reduced cost.
     \end{itemize}
   \item \smiley \frowny 10$^{12}$ pixels : \textcolor{orange}{digital} readout, DAQ rate dominated by \textcolor{blue}{noise}
   \item \neutry Area needed for \textcolor{Lavender}{logic and RAM} : ~10\% dead area
   \item \smiley \textcolor{green}{Cost saving} : CMOS vs high resistivity Si wafers
   \item \smiley Power dissipation :  more \textcolor{magenta}{uniform}
   \item \frowny \textcolor{red}{challenge} to match analog ECAL 1 $\mu$W/mm$^2$
  \end{itemize}

\end{frame}

\section[I- Design]{Design of the first sensor}

\subsection{Pixel architectures}


\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Sensor designs}
\framesubtitle{Two architectures}

\vspace*{-4mm}
\begin{block}{}
\footnotesize{
  \begin{itemize}
  \item 4 diodes, \diameter 1.8 $\mu$m
  \item common comparator+readout logic
  \item 2 types of capacitors for each architecture
  \end{itemize}
}
\end{block}
\vspace*{-2mm}
\begin{columns}
\column{5cm}
\begin{block}{Pre-shaper design}
\begin{center}
\footnotesize{Big resistor}
\includegraphics[width=3.5cm,height=3.5cm]{../graphics/maps_shaper.png}
\end{center}
\end{block}
\column{5cm}
\begin{block}{Pre-sampler design}
\begin{center}
\footnotesize{Monostable, self-reset}
\includegraphics[width=3.5cm,height=3.5cm]{../graphics/maps_sampler.png}
\end{center}
\end{block}
\end{columns}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Sensor designs schematics}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{sensorDesignsSchema.pdf}
\end{figure}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}
\frametitle{The INMAPS process}

\begin{block}{Objective: shield the electronics n-well}
\textcolor{Lavender}{pink : electronics n-well, eating charge}\\
\textcolor{Gray}{grey : deep p-well implant 1 $\mu$m thick added to block the charge absorption}
\vspace*{-0.8cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5cm,height=4.8cm]{../graphics/preshape_nw_highlighted.png}
\end{center}
\end{block}

\end{frame}

\subsection{Test structure}


\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Sensor architecture overview}

\begin{block}{$1\times 1$ cm$^2$ in total, 8.2 million transistors, 28224 pixels}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth,height=0.5\textwidth]{../graphics/sensorArch.png}
\end{center}
\end{block}

\end{frame}


\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Sensor 1 bonded}

\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth,height=0.6\textwidth]{../graphics/sensor1bonded.png}
\end{center}

\end{frame}



\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Uniformity of power dissipation}

\begin{block}{Thermal images}
Around the pixels: bond wires (in blue) and ground pads (in red).
\begin{columns}
\column{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{../graphics/temperaturePixelsDisabled.png}
\end{center}
\column{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{../graphics/temperaturePixelsEnabled.png}
\end{center}
\end{columns}
\end{block}

\end{frame}

\subsection{Sensor simulation}


\begin{frame}

\frametitle{Sensor simulation}

\begin{columns}
\column{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{block}{Software used}
Sensor simulation: Centaurus TCAD,\\
Pixel description: CADENCE GDS file.
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth,height=3cm]{../graphics/maps_centaurus_2.png}
\end{center}
\end{block}
\column{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{itemize}
\item Diode size has been optimised in term of signal over noise ratio, charge collected in the cell in the worse scenario (hit at the corner), and collection time.
\item Diodes place is restricted by the pixel designs, e.g. to minimise capacitance effects
\end{itemize}
\end{columns}

\end{frame}






\section[II- Testing]{Sensor testing}

\subsection{Laser setup}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Laser test setup}

\begin{columns}
\column{0.5\textwidth}
%\begin{block}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth,height=1.\textwidth]{../graphics/maps_laser_2.png}
\end{center}
%\end{block}
\column{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{block}{Analogue test structure}
No INMAPS (left) vs INMAPS (right).
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth,height=0.9\textwidth]{../graphics/inMapsvsNone.png}
\end{center}
\end{block}
\end{columns}


\end{frame}



\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Threshold scan with and without laser}

\begin{block}{blue: without laser, red: with laser on}
The laser was fired in pixel x$\simeq$25, y$\simeq$69 (right plot).
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{../graphics/laserThreshScan.png}
\end{center}
\end{block}

\end{frame}

\subsection{Source setup}


\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Source test setup : $\beta$ source}

%\begin{columns}
%\column{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{block}{$^{90}$Sr or $^{204}$Tl}
Number of hits per region vs threshold.\\
No source: \textcolor{blue}{blue} and \textcolor{purple}{purple}\\
Source : \textcolor{red}{red} and \textcolor{green}{green}
\vspace*{-1cm}
\begin{flushright}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,height=0.45\textwidth]{../graphics/betaSource_hits.png}
\end{flushright}
\end{block}
%\column{0.5\textwidth}
%\end{columns}

\end{frame}


\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Source test setup : $\alpha$ source}

\begin{block}{$^{241}$Am}
x-y axis: pixel index.
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth,height=0.45\textwidth]{../graphics/alphaSource_xyhits.png}
\end{center}
\end{block}

\end{frame}

\subsection{Beam test setup}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Preparing for the beam test at DESY}

\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{../graphics/testingDAQ_IC.jpg}
\end{center}

\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Installation at DESY}

\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth,height=0.6\textwidth]{../graphics/maps_desy_tb_layout_copy.png}
\end{center}

\end{frame}


\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Four layers inserted in their stand}
\framesubtitle{... and a lot of cables !!}

%\begin{center}
\begin{columns}
\column{0.5\textwidth}
%\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{../graphics/testbeamStand.png}
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{../graphics/setup_flat.jpg}
%\end{center}
\column{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{../graphics/setup_standing.jpg}
\end{columns}

\end{frame}


\begin{frame}
\frametitle{DAQ boards all working}

\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth,height=0.6\textwidth]{../graphics/DAQboardsPretty.jpg}
\end{center}


\end{frame}


\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Structure of data taking}

\footnotesize{
\begin{block}{Configurations:}
\begin{itemize}
\item With one sensor : threshold scan. Threshold unit = TU $\rightarrow$ random unit: need gain to convert into MIPs.
\item With 4 sensors: 3 sensors at nominal threshold, last one threshold scan. Nominal threshold should be set so that worse case S/N=10.
\end{itemize}
\end{block}
}
%\begin{block}{}
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{../graphics/dataStruct.png}
\end{center}
%\end{block}


\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Summary of the data taken}

\begin{table}
\scriptsize{
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Shower studies}\\
\hline
Type & E (GeV) & W (mm) & bunch trains (k) \\
\hline
nominal threshold 150/300 TU & no beam & 30 & 134 \\
nominal threshold 150/300 TU & 6       & 30 & 306 \\
threshold scan    & 6       & 30 & 1000 \\
nominal threshold 150/300 TU & 6       & 15 & 20 \\
nominal threshold 150/300 TU & 6       & 9  & 40 \\
nominal threshold 120/200 TU & 6       & 9  & 40 \\
nominal threshold 120/200 TU & no beam & 9  & 40 \\
threshold scan (1 sensor w/o deep p-w)    & 3 & 9 & 879 \\
threshold scan (1 sensor w/o deep p-w)    & no beam & 9 & 435 \\
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Efficiency studies }\\
\hline
threshold scan    & 3  & 0 & 3300 \\
threshold scan    & no beam  & 0 & 406 \\
threshold scan (1 sensor w/o deep p-w)    & 3 & 0 & 531 \\
threshold scan (1 sensor w/o deep p-w)     & no beam & 0 & 403 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}


\end{frame}


\section[III- Data analysis]{Analysis of beam test data}


\subsection{Troubleshooting}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Finding the working point is not trivial ... }

%\begin{block}{Very preliminary !}
\begin{itemize}
\item A few critical issues have been identified that prevented the sensor from working, and are now worked around.% E.g. connection to wrong voltage $\rightarrow$ change resistor value.
\item Predicted signal/noise of $\simeq$10 worse case (corner of a pixel).
\item Working point is not yet understood:
   \begin{itemize}
   \item Gain is a priori a factor 2 too low for the samplers.
   \item Noise is a priori a factor 5 too high for the samplers.
   \item With 31 references to play with : hard work to scan everything !!
   \end{itemize}
\item Working point at DESY was at the best of our understanding in December.
\item No shower studies in the following.
\end{itemize}
%\end{block}

\end{frame}


\begin{frame}
\frametitle{A few additional difficulties ... }

%\begin{block}{}
\footnotesize{
\begin{itemize}
\item Two pixels architectures (shapers/samplers) alternated in the four layers: one track = 2 samplers + 2 shapers.
\end{itemize}
}
%\end{block}

\begin{columns}
\column{0.5\textwidth}
\footnotesize{
\begin{itemize}
\item Memory filling: per region and per row : $\leq$ 19 groups per bunch train. One noisy pixel: entire row (42 pixels) ``dead'' for the entire bunch train.
\item Samplers less understood. E.g. reset after firing only $\rightarrow$ noise divergence $\rightarrow$ noise (and hence sensitivity) increases with time.
\item Since DESY, we realised that the non-uniformity of the pedestals is non-negligeable compared to our best knowledge of a MIP: $\simeq$100 TU.
\end{itemize}
}
\column{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{../graphics/470371lin.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{columns}

\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Sensor is however responding !}


\begin{block}{Spatial correlations in x and y: sensor \#8 vs sensor \#2}
\begin{columns}
\column{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{../graphics/xCorrelation.png}
\end{center}
\column{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{../graphics/yCorrelation.png}
\end{center}
\end{columns}
\end{block}

\begin{block}{Since DESY we realised...}
\footnotesize{
\begin{itemize}
\item Non-uniformity not negligeable compared to our best knowledge of a MIP: $\simeq$100 TU. 
\item Preliminary studies show narrow noise pixel-by-pixel: $\simeq$5 TU,
\item but wide pedestal distribution. 
\item Not compensating this effect $\rightarrow$ artificially high noise.
\end{itemize}
}
\end{block}

\end{frame}

%\begin{frame}
%\frametitle{Since DESY, we realised ...}

%\begin{columns}
%\column{0.5\textwidth}
%\begin{block}{Pedestal uniformity}
%The non-uniformity is non-negligeable compared to our best knowledge of a MIP: $\simeq$100 TU.
%\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth,angle=90]{../graphics/Run470397RawMean0.pdf}
%\end{block}
%\column{0.5\textwidth}
%\begin{block}{Noise uniformity}
%Narrow distribution, picked at $\simeq$5 TU
%\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth,angle=90]{../graphics/Run470397RawRms0.pdf}
%\end{block}
%\end{columns}

%\end{frame}

\subsection{Tracking efficiency}


\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Tracking efficiency}

\begin{block}{}
\footnotesize{
\begin{itemize}
\item \textcolor{red}{\small{Without individual threshold settings:}} noise artificially large $\simeq$25 TU.
\item Threshold scan restricted around the ``nominal'' settings at DESY:\\
 120 (shapers)/200 (samplers) TU.
\end{itemize}
}
\end{block}

\begin{block}{}
\begin{columns}
\column{0.4\textwidth}
\footnotesize{
\begin{itemize}
\item Tracks done with 3 layers: efficiency of the 4$^{th}$ layer to give a hit with a good $\chi^2$.
\item $\chi^2$ cut: noise is completely removed !
\item To have ``real'' efficiency, need to measure each pixel and adjust threshold setting accordingly !
\end{itemize}
}
\column{0.6\textwidth}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{../graphics/globalSensorEfficiency.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{columns}
\end{block}

\end{frame}

\subsection{MC simulation}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{MC simulation of beam test setup}
\framesubtitle{Digitisation procedure}

\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{../graphics/digi_procedure.pdf}
\end{center}

\end{frame}


\begin{frame}
\frametitle{MC: threshold scan with different scenarios}

Between blue lines: estimated corresponding data scan region.

\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{../graphics/threshScan_MC.png}
\end{center}

\end{frame}


\section*{Conclusion and Outlook}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Conclusion}

  \begin{itemize}
   \item Power dissipation is confirmed to be \textcolor{green}{uniform}.
   \item \textcolor{orange}{INMAPS process} makes a huge improvement in the amount of charge collected
   \item Shapers are more stable, \textcolor{blue}{uniform in time}, and easier to understand, for similar performances.
   \item \textcolor{red}{Complex} sensor:
     \begin{itemize}
      \item 8 million transistors, 
      \item pixels threshold \textcolor{green}{individually} adjustable,
      \item \textcolor{blue}{31 references} to adjust...
     \end{itemize}
    $\rightarrow$ \textcolor{orange}{Time needed} to understand it!
   \item Beam test at DESY: \textcolor{Lavender}{too early} in our understanding of the sensors, but still lots learnt from the data.
   \item Non-uniformity in threshold settings not accounted for yet: individually adjusted settings \textcolor{red}{required}.
  \end{itemize}

\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Outlook}

  \begin{itemize}
   \item Gain measurements: laser setup on its way to perform a \textcolor{blue}{full scan} and measure \textcolor{orange}{individual pixel response}:
     \begin{itemize}
      \item Check geometrical mapping,
      \item measure response \textcolor{red}{uniformity} and gain,
      \item evaluate \textcolor{green}{charge spread}: comparison with sensor simulation.
     \end{itemize}
   \item Another beam test if possible, with \textcolor{orange}{correct adjustment} of individual pixel threshold.
   \item Design of the \textcolor{blue}{second round}: correction of known features + further development if time/money allows.
  \end{itemize}

\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{}

%\vspace*{0.3\textwidth}

\begin{columns}
\column{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{/home/magnan/PERSO/shadocks_devise_connerie.jpg}
\end{center}
\column{0.5\textwidth}
Thank you for your attention !
\vspace*{4cm}
\begin{block}{}
\footnotesize{(It's better to concentrate its intelligence on messed-up things than messing up on intelligent things.)}
\end{block}
\end{columns}


\end{frame}


\end{document}


