LAV simulation with Geant4 Karim Massri, Sergio Giudici University of Pisa & INFN Collaboration Meeting 8/9/2010
Outline Aim of the simulation Changes made on NA62MC The LAV simulated layout The LeadGlass simulated layout Hits Time Distribution Hadron Detection Efficiencies MIP Simulation-data comparison Conclusions
Residual Gas & GigaTrackers Aim of the simulation We used a Geant4 simulation to estimate the LAV detection efficiency of several particles (e.g. n, p, K, p, m) in order to study Residual Gas & GigaTrackers related backgrounds
Changes made on NA62MC Improved LG optical photons absorption length Improved optical light guide parameters Not transparent wrapping (optical photons absorption length = 20 nm) New leaves in the output tree (e.g. Number of PMTs hit, Number of hits in each PMT, …) New geometry (Only a 5x5 blocks sector simulated)
The LAV simulated layout Everything as the official geometry but only 5 layers x 5 blocks simulated Red circles: light guides, Arrow: beam direction
The LeadGlass simulated layout Everything as the official geometry but PMTs ARE NOT FULLY SIMULATED! → Photocatode only with nominal Quatum Efficiency (from Hamamatsu) 1 Hit = 1 Photoelectron emitted
Hits Time Distribution Cutoff at 10 ns in order to reject photoelectrons produced by chain decays p → m → e (too delayed to be relevant experimentally)
Hadron Detection Efficiencies nHits request on the MOST HIT PMT
Hadron Detection Efficiencies nHits request on the MOST HIT PMT
Hadron Detection Efficiencies nHits request on the MOST HIT PMT nHits request on the MOST HIT PMT Non zero efficiency at low momenta due to K decay!
Hadron Detection Efficiencies nHits request on the MOST HIT PMT Higher efficiency than the K+ one due to Ks regeneration!
Fluctuactions are different! Muon studies Fluctuactions are different! Simulation: Statistics (Optical photons fluctuactions..) Data: Systematics (different aging of blocks, different quantum efficiencies..) from SIMULATION from LNF Oven data 24!
MIP Detection Efficiency This value changes with the threshold! How does it change? See next slide..
MIP Simulation-data comparison 1 p.e. = 0.2 pC (G=1.288 x 10^6) Block from Layer 2 LAV TB 2010 (See Paolo V.'s talk)
Conclusions We improved the NA62MC simulation of LAV (with respect to december 2009 version) We calculated the LAV hadron detection efficiencies for several particles and different thresholds We compared the results for muons with LNF Oven runs & LAV TB 2010 data finding good agreement!