DRS4 Forum
  DRS4 Discussion Forum  Not logged in ELOG logo
Entry  Thu Apr 11 22:41:13 2013, Bill Ashmanskas, code/details for optimal DRS4 timing calibration? tcalib.png
    Reply  Fri Apr 12 08:38:17 2013, Stefan Ritt, code/details for optimal DRS4 timing calibration? 
Message ID: 240     Entry time: Fri Apr 12 08:38:17 2013     In reply to: 237
Author: Stefan Ritt 
Subject: code/details for optimal DRS4 timing calibration? 

Bill Ashmanskas wrote:

Hi Stefan,

Is either some example code or a detailed written description available for the improved DRS4 timing-calibration algorithm described by Daniel Stricker-Shaver at MIC 2012?  I think you told me that you had verified the results with your own test set-up, so I figure there must be at least two sets of code in existence to implement this calibration.  (I have Daniel's presentation slides.)

I managed to find a ping-pong distribution of cell widths that looks quite similar to that shown in Daniel's slides, using an algorithm similar to the technique one uses to find radial offsets in a tracking chamber (i.e. using residuals weighted by track slope), but I'd rather use the method with which you and Daniel have already found good results.  (The attached graph shows in black the histogram of cell widths for essentially the algorithm used in DRS.cpp/DRSBoard::AnalyzeWF, and in blue the histogram of cell widths extracted from the slope-weighted residuals for a periodic reference signal.)

By the way, since Daniel finds a FWHM coincidence-timing resolution around 20-25ps at 5 GSPS (for perfectly identical pulses), should I expect a FWHM resolution (for synthesized, ideal pulses) of around 50-65ps at 2 GSPS?

(I'm posting here instead of writing you both privately because I figure there may be broader interest in Daniel's algorithm.)



Hi Bill,

there are several reasons why we have not yet published Daniel's method (I'm in constant contact with him).

1. The method still changes, becomes simpler and more accurate. Originally he used sine waves with varying frequency, which you only get from an external function oscillator. Currently, we found that a single frequency could do a similar, maybe even better job. The current result is much better than the 20-25ps quoted at MIC 2012.

2. Daniel found out that for the ultimate resolution you have to calibrate each channel inside a chip separately. I do understand in meantime the reason for that. So I plan for a V5 evaluation board, which contains means of sending a log-jitter clock to all channels. This board is in test phase and will be made available once it's working as expected.

So my plan is to finish the V5 board and implement the best possible timing calibration on it. Daniel achieved already <5 ps RMS (!) independent of the delay between the two optimal pulses (up to 50 ns). This is actually better than what you can do with a high-end oscilloscope, since scopes have internal interleaving and similar problems due to aliasing etc. than the DRS chip, but scope manufacturers do not put such an emphasis on accurate timing measurements. Once we can reproduce the 5 ps result with the evaluation board, we will publish it. When we found the optimal method, we plan to write a paper about it and explain everything in great detail. We will also be at Seoul for MIC 2013. I'm topic convener there for the session "Digitalization, Acquisition, and Signal Processing Technologies". So probably we will put the DRS4 timing talk there, since it's of more general interest not only to medical applications (and honestly, for a 150 ps TOF-PET you do not need a 5 ps electronics resolution). So stay tuned!


ELOG V3.1.4-bcd7b50