Brunel University London Field-off LiH Energy Loss Rhys Gardener CM45 – July 28th.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Particle identification in ECAL Alexander Artamonov, Yuri Kharlov IHEP, Protvino CBM collaboration meeting
Advertisements

1 Progress report on Calorimeter design comparison simulations MICE detector phone conference Rikard Sandström.
LHCb PatVeloTT Performance Adam Webber. Why Upgrade?  Currently we de-focus the beams o LHCb Luminosity ~ 2x10 32 cm -2 s -1 o ~ 1 interaction per bunch.
1 PID, emittance and cooling measurement Rikard Sandström University of Geneva MICE Analysis phone conference.
Emittance–momentum matrix1 Demonstrating the emittance-momentum matrix Mark Rayner, MICE Video Conference, 21 January Initial 4D.
SLIDE Beam measurements using the MICE TOF counters Analysis meeting, 23 September 2008 Mark Rayner.
30 March Global Mice Particle Identification Steve Kahn 30 March 2004 Mice Collaboration Meeting.
1 Downstream PID update Rikard Sandström PID phone conference
March 30, 2004 TJR1 MICE Upstream Particle Identification Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Technology March 30, 2004.
CMS Physics Meeting, Dec. 6, Analysis Note on the Validation of the ORCA Simulation of the Endcap Muon CSC Front-end Electronics S. Durkin -- Ohio.
1 September 09Mark Rayner – Emittance measurement by The TOFs1 Emittance measurement by the TOFs Via trace space reconstruction of individual muons. Complementary.
Mar 31, 2005Steve Kahn -- Ckov and Tof Detector Simulation 1 Ckov1, Ckov2, Tof2 MICE Pid Tele-Meeting Steve Kahn 31 March 2005.
1 PID Detectors & Emittance Resolution Chris Rogers Rutherford Appleton Laboratory MICE CM17.
1 Chris Rogers Imperial College 18 May 2006 TOF II Justification.
11-FEB-2004 TJR1 MICE Beamline TOF Analysis Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Techology February 11, 2004.
1 Statistics Toy Monte Carlo David Forrest University of Glasgow.
Chris Rogers, MICE CM16 Wednesday Plenary Progress in Cooling Channel Simulation.
Beam line characterization with the TOFs1 Demonstrating the emittance-momentum matrix Mark Rayner, CM26 California, 24 March Initial.
Effects of Tracking Limitations On Jet Mass Resolution Chris Meyer UCSC ILC Simulation Reconstruction Meeting July 3, 2007.
Simulated real beam into simulated MICE1 Mark Rayner CM26.
1 Downstream PID update - How cooling section affects TOF measurement Rikard Sandström PID phone conference
Mark Rayner, Analysis workshop 4 September ‘08: Use of TOFs for Beam measurement & RF phasing, slide 1 Use of TOFs for Beam measurement & RF phasing Analysis.
18 August 09Mark Rayner – Momentum measurement by The TOFs1 Momentum measurement by the TOFs A correction to an O(4 MeV/c) bias on the current muon momentum.
Chris Rogers, Analysis Parallel, MICE CM17 Progress in Cooling Channel Simulation.
1 Chris Rogers MICE Collaboration Meeting 11th Feb 2005 Tracking and Cooling performance of G4MICE.
Stats update Was asked to provide comparison between toy mc and g4mice at two points along z (middle of first and third absorbers) 10,000 events, step.
Diffuser Studies Chris Rogers, IC/RAL MICE VC 09 March 2005.
Tracker Reconstruction SoftwarePerformance Review, Oct 16, 2002 Summary of Core “Performance Review” for TkrRecon How do we know the Tracking is working?
Analysis of MICE Chris Rogers 1 Imperial College/RAL Thursday 28 October, With thanks to John Cobb.
Tracker Software Update Adam Dobbs, MICE CM37 7 th Nov 2013.
Emittance measurement: ID muons with time-of-flight Measure x,y and t at TOF0, TOF1 Use momentum-dependent transfer matrices iteratively to determine trace.
Measurement of through-going particle momentum by means of Multiple Scattering with the T600 TPC Talk given by Antonio Jesús Melgarejo (Universidad de.
Physics Program and Runs: Autumn 2011 & Step IV V. Blackmore MICE Project Board, 08/03/12.
Emittance measurement: ID muons with time-of-flight Measure x,y and t at TOF0, TOF1 Use momentum-dependent transfer matrices to map  path Assume straight.
Introduction Miha Zgubič, summer student Scintillating fibre tracker software Analysis of performance of momentum reconstruction 1.
Feb 10, 2005 S. Kahn -- Pid Detectors in G4MicePage 1 Pid Detector Implementation in G4Mice Steve Kahn Brookhaven National Lab 10 Feb 2005.
Results from Step I of MICE D Adey 2013 International Workshop on Neutrino Factories, Super-beams and Beta- beams Working Group 3 – Accelerator Topics.
DE/dx measurement with Phobos Si-pad detectors - very first impressions (H.P Oct )
TOF Meeting, 9 December 2009, CERN Chiara Zampolli for the ALICE-TOF.
Optimising Cuts for HLT George Talbot Supervisor: Stewart Martin-Haugh.
V.Patera – KLOE GM – Otranto – 10 June 2002 K  reconstruction status K + K - retracking features New vs Old : resolution New vs Old : efficiencies Conclusion.
Mark Rayner 14/8/08Analysis Meeting: Emittance measurement using the TOFs 1 Emittance measurement using the TOFs The question: can we use position measurements.
PID simulations Rikard Sandström University of Geneva MICE collaboration meeting RAL.
Resolution and radiative corrections A first order estimate for pbar p  e + e - T. H. IPN Orsay 05/10/2011 GDR PH-QCD meeting on « The nucleon structure.
26 Oct 2010PC Physics Requirements of Software from Chris R ~19 Oct. My.
Calice Meeting Argonne Muon identification with the hadron calorimeter Nicola D’Ascenzo.
1 Performance of a Magnetised Scintillating Detector for a Neutrino Factory Scoping Study Meeting U.C. Irvine Monday 21 st August 2006 M. Ellis & A. Bross.
Analysis meeting: Beam momentum measurements using TOFs Tuesday, 22 January 2008 Slide 1 of 10 Beam momentum measurement using.
M. Bonesini - CM 22 RAL October 081 TOF0 status M. Bonesini Sezione INFN Milano Bicocca.
18 th March 2008Measuring momentum using the TOFsSlide 1 Measuring momentum using TOF0 and TOF1 Progress report Mark Rayner (Oxford/RAL) Analysis Meeting,
Mark Rayner – Analysis SessionCM25, 4 November Beam characterization by the TOFs Mark Rayner The University of Oxford MICE CM25.
Measuring Multiple Scattering in Step IV Timothy Carlisle Oxford See MICE Note 374 for updated results.
M. Martemianov, ITEP, October 2003 Analysis of ratio BR(K     0 )/BR(K    ) M. Martemianov V. Kulikov Motivation Selection and cuts Trigger efficiency.
Status of the measurement of K L lifetime - Data sample (old): ~ 440 pb -1 ( ) - MC sample: ~125 pb -1 ( mk0 stream ) Selection: standard tag (|
(one of the) Request from MPB
Mitglied der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Hit Reconstruction for the Luminosity Monitor March 3 rd 2009 | T. Randriamalala, J. Ritman and T. Stockmanns.
Global Track Matching and Fitting
Beam Energy-Loss measurement
MICE Analysis Status and Plans
MICE Step IV Lattice Design Based on Genetic Algorithm Optimizations
Field-on measurement of multiple scattering
Event “zero-time” determination with TOF detector
Charles F. Maguire Vanderbilt University
Using MICE to verify simulation codes?
Muon momentum scale calibration with J/y peak
Global PID MICE CM43 29/10/15 Celeste Pidcott University of Warwick
Individual Particle Reconstruction
° status report analysis details: overview; “where we are”; plans: before finalizing result.. I.Larin 02/13/2009.
Progress in angular acceptance study
° status report analysis details: overview; “where we are”; plans: before finalizing result.. I.Larin 02/13/2009.
Presentation transcript:

Brunel University London Field-off LiH Energy Loss Rhys Gardener CM45 – July 28th

Brunel University London Aim to use TOF data to measure muon energy loss from Absorber without field. First approximation at last CM. Since last CM produced a full algorithm detailing the energy of the muon at each point in the cooling channel. Lot of effort into accuracy of measurement. Where a measurement is taken has a large effect. Quick overview of algorithm MAUS Simulation momentum verification Applied to 3pi-200 datasets.

Brunel University London ● Assume Energy Loss in TOF and Tracker is known. Otherwise no hope. ● Get momentum before TOF1 using Rayner reconstruction (from Victoria’s code). ● Using the expression: ● Obtain the velocity of a particle given an Energy Loss. ● Use this to get the muon velocity after TOF1, then after the tracker.

Brunel University London Velocities before absorber now known. From velocities, now also know: ● time of flight of muon before tracker ● time of flight of muon inside tracker ● time of flight of muon between tracker and absorber. ● Note that it is important to make sure that the point where the measurement is taken is well known. Small differences in length make a large difference to the final result.

Brunel University London To get velocity after absorber use iterative: ● Define t_postabs = t12 – t1t – ttracker – tta -, where t1t, t_TKU and tta are time of flights between respective points. t_abs is an approximation of the time of flight inside the particle ● Use t_postabs as a first guess for the velocity after absorber. ● Then use this guess and known Energy Loss in tracker and get velocities inside tracker, after tracker. ● Gives you t_at, t_TKD, and t_t2. ● We want t_postabs = t_at + t_TKD + t_t2 + t_abs, but this won't be the case immediately. ● Modify the guess of velocity after absorber accordingly and repeat. ● Iterates towards solution of velocity after absorber, and hence Energy Loss ● can be measured. t_1t t_t t_ta t_att_t t_t2

Brunel University London Simple Simulation to test feasibility: ● Pencil beam 200MeV muons. ● Energy loss of 11.6MeV, landau shape. ● Simulated errors in time from TOF resolution.

Brunel University London MAUS simulation ● Geometry 152 with “no field” cooling channel tag ● 200MeV muons, width 25MeV generated before TOF0 ● events generated so far. ● MAUS v2.3.1 ● Below plots show difference between MC truth data and reconstructed energy before and after absorber. ● Cuts taken to select particles that provide good data in all TOFs, and go straight through TKU in the center (to minimise scatter effects) ●

Brunel University London Energy loss reconstructed from TOF data, generated from MAUS. Mean = 13.9, error = 0.07 Energy Loss in MC

Brunel University London MC Energy loss from truth data vs Energy loss reconstructed from time. Note good agreement in mean of both distributions. Energy Loss in MC

Brunel University London Average Energy loss vs Momentum ● 5MeV intervals from 180 – 260MeV/c taken at TOF1 ● Reconstructed energy losses from time Peak around 235MeV/c need to be investigated. As this data set is only from a 200MeV/c gaussian beam, 235MeV/c is on edge of curve.

Brunel University London 7469 Data - Verification ● Use this SSU dataset to verify momentum before absorber. ● Cuts on time TOF0->TOF1 <28.9ns ● Lower statistics as also requiring data in TOF2. -Energy reconstructed from time agrees well with the TKU momentum reconstructed.

Brunel University London ● LiH data using M0 optics ● Runs accumulated together for these plots. ● Cut for time between TOF0->TOF1 < 28.9ns ● Tracker spacepoints cut for straight tracks (in Energy loss measurement) Real data Energy from before TOF1 Reconstructed Energy before Absorber Add plots

Brunel University London Energy loss seems in agreement with MC predictions, error 0.17MeV.

Brunel University London

Conclusions and next steps Good agreement between truth data and reconstructed energy loss data. SSU data confirms that reconstructed momentum before absorber is reconstructed well We will be able to verify that this process reconstructs energy correctly both sides of the absorber with a dataset where there is field in both trackers. Investigate energy loss differences at high momenta May be mitigated with the 240MeV/c datasets. Will allow the range of momenta investigated to be increased Plot against the Bethe curve for LiH