Detector Configuration for Simulation (i)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)
Advertisements

Recent Results on Radiative Kaon decays from NA48 and NA48/2. Silvia Goy López (for the NA48 and NA48/2 collaborations) Universitá degli Studi di Torino.
The performance of Strip-Fiber EM Calorimeter response uniformity, spatial resolution The 7th ACFA Workshop on Physics and Detector at Future Linear Collider.
W. Clarida, HCAL Meeting, Fermilab Oct. 06 Quartz Plate Calorimeter Prototype Geant4 Simulation Progress W. Clarida The University of Iowa.
1 Study of the Tail Catcher Muon Tracker (TCMT) Scintillator Strips and Leakage with Simulated Coil Rick Salcido Northern Illinois University For CALICE.
Off-axis Simulations Peter Litchfield, Minnesota  What has been simulated?  Will the experiment work?  Can we choose a technology based on simulations?
Effects of Tracking Limitations On Jet Mass Resolution Chris Meyer UCSC ILC Simulation Reconstruction Meeting July 3, 2007.
1 EMCal design MICE collaboration meeting Fermilab Rikard Sandström.
Photon reconstruction and calorimeter software Mikhail Prokudin.
Study of response uniformity of LHCb ECAL Mikhail Prokudin, ITEP.
Energy Flow and Jet Calibration Mark Hodgkinson Artemis Meeting 27 September 2007 Contains work by R.Duxfield,P.Hodgson, M.Hodgkinson,D.Tovey.
Feb 10, 2005 S. Kahn -- Pid Detectors in G4MicePage 1 Pid Detector Implementation in G4Mice Steve Kahn Brookhaven National Lab 10 Feb 2005.
Calibration of the ZEUS calorimeter for electrons Alex Tapper Imperial College, London for the ZEUS Collaboration Workshop on Energy Calibration of the.
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Page 1 EC / PCAL ENERGY CALIBRATION Cole Smith UVA PCAL EC Outline Why 2 calorimeters? Requirements Using.
Summary of PHOS Internal Notes (part I) Rafael Diaz Valdes 10/25/20151.
International Workshop on Linear Colliders, Geneve Muon reconstruction and identification in the ILD detector N. D’Ascenzo, V.Saveliev.
PHENIX Local Polarimeter PSTP 2007 at BNL September 11, 2007 Yuji Goto (RIKEN/RBRC)
1 Energy loss correction for a crystal calorimeter He Miao Institute of High Energy Physics Beijing, P.R.China.
1 Calorimeter in G4MICE Berkeley 10 Feb 2005 Rikard Sandström Geneva University.
1 Lead glass simulations Eliane Epple, TU Munich Kirill Lapidus, INR Moscow Collaboration Meeting XXI March 2010 GSI.
Development of a Particle Flow Algorithms (PFA) at Argonne Presented by Lei Xia ANL - HEP.
Simulations Report E. García, UIC. Run 1 Geometry Radiator (water) 1cm x 2cm x 2cm with optical properties Sensitive Volume (hit collector) acrylic (with.
1 Performance of a Magnetised Scintillating Detector for a Neutrino Factory Scoping Study Meeting Rutherford Appleton Lab Tuesday 25 th April 2006 M. Ellis.
Feasibility Study of Forward Calorimeter in ALICE experiment Sanjib Muhuri Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre Kolkata.
CBM ECAL simulation status Prokudin Mikhail ITEP.
Calorimeter in front of MUCh Mikhail Prokudin. Overview ► Geometry and acceptance ► Reconstruction procedure  Cluster finder algorithms  Preliminary.
A Clustering Algorithm for LumiCal Halina Abramowicz, Ronen Ingbir, Sergey Kananov, Aharon Levy, Iftach Sadeh Tel Aviv University DESY Collaboration High.
Photon reconstruction and matching Prokudin Mikhail.
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.
1 D.Chakraborty – VLCW'06 – 2006/07/21 PFA reconstruction with directed tree clustering Dhiman Chakraborty for the NICADD/NIU software group Vancouver.
Magnetized hadronic calorimeter and muon veto for the K +   +  experiment L. DiLella, May 25, 2004 Purpose:  Provide pion – muon separation (muon veto)
CaTS and Dual Readout. CaTS – Calorimeter and Tracker Simulation Describe detector in gdml file (xml like) Define.
1 Hadronic calorimeter simulation S.Itoh, T.Takeshita ( Shinshu Univ.) GLC calorimeter group Contents - Comparison between Scintillator and Gas - Digital.
The Luminosity Calorimeter Iftach Sadeh Tel Aviv University Desy ( On behalf of the FCAL collaboration ) June 11 th 2008.
1 LumiCal Optimization Simulations Iftach Sadeh Tel Aviv University Collaboration High precision design May 6 th 2008.
Geant4 Tutorial, Oct28 th 2003V. Daniel Elvira Geant4 Simulation of the CMS 2002 Hcal Test Beam V. Daniel Elvira Geant4 Tutorial.
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.
06/2006I.Larin PrimEx Collaboration meeting  0 analysis.
1 Plannar Active Absorber Calorimeter Adam Para, Niki Saoulidou, Hans Wenzel, Shin-Shan Yu Fermialb Tianchi Zhao University of Washington ACFA Meeting.
Alex Howard PH-SFT LCG-PV 10 th May 2006 Neutron Benchmark for Geant4 using TARC – initial status 1)TARC – experimental set-up and aims 2)Geant4 Simulation.
Energy Reconstruction in the CALICE Fe-AHCal in Analog and Digital Mode Fe-AHCal testbeam CERN 2007 Coralie Neubüser CALICE Collaboration meeting Argonne,
W Prototype Simulations Linear Collider Physics & Detector Meeting December 15, 2009 Christian Grefe CERN, Bonn University.
Use of the D0 Central Preshower in Electron Identification John Gardner University of Kansas APS April 6, 2003.
SHIP calorimeters at test beam I. KorolkoFebruary 2016.
Simulation and reconstruction of CLAS12 Electromagnetic Calorimeter in GSIM12 S. Stepanyan (JLAB), N. Dashyan (YerPhI) CLAS12 Detector workshop, February.
Physics performance of a DHCAL with various absorber materials Jan BLAHA CALICE Meeting, 16 – 18 Sep. 2009, Lyon, France.
Initial proposal for the design of the luminosity calorimeter at a 3TeV CLIC Iftach Sadeh Tel Aviv University March 6th 2009
R.W. Assmann, V. Boccone, F. Cerutti, M. Huhtinen, A. Mereghetti
CEPC ScECAL Optimization for the 3th CEPC Physics Software Meeting
The MiniBooNE Little Muon Counter Detector
Validation of Geant4 against the TARC benchmark: Testing neutron production, transportation and interaction TARC – experimental set-up and aims Geant4.
Predrag Krstonosic - ILC Valencia
Observation of a “cusp” in the decay K±  p±pp
Parameterization for ATLAS EMEC
A reconstruction algorithm for photons converted in tracker
Radial Tail Resolution in the SELEX RICH A. Morelos, P. Cooper, J
The reconstruction method for GLD PFA
Jin Huang Los Alamos National Lab
Individual Particle Reconstruction
Simulation study for Forward Calorimeter in LHC-ALICE experiment
Rick Salcido Northern Illinois University For CALICE Collaboration
Higgs Factory Backgrounds
Single Particle Geant4 simulation for the sPHENIX PRESHOWER
PrimEx p0 radiative width extraction
Reports for highly granular hadron calorimeter using software compensation techniques Bing Liu SJTU February 25, 2019.
NKS2 Meeting with Bydzovsky NKS2 Experiment / Analysis Status
CMS-Bijing weekly meeting
Michele Faucci Giannelli
LC Calorimeter Testbeam Requirements
What does it change for ECAL design ?
Presentation transcript:

Detector Configuration for Simulation (i) Material: Tungsten powder with polystyrene fibers Dimensions: 0.52x0.52x1.3 m Cells: 2.6x2.6 cm, each cell contains 26 rows/columns of scintillating fiber Detector is rotated 2° with respect to incoming particles Specify fibers diameter, number of fibers per cell, number of cells in the block. Mention that this is about ¼ of what will require to fill with open FMS configuration. Radiation length and Molere radius. 1

Detector Configuration for Simulation (ii) Scintillating fibers are 1mm in diameter and run the length of the detector The radiation length of the mixture of tungsten and polystyrene is 8.7mm and the nuclear interaction length is 21.2 cm. The length of the detector was chosen to be about 6 nucl. int. lengths. The geometry specified for this simulation is about ¼ what is necessary to fill open FMS configuration

Simulation Conditions Cutoffs are left at their default values (1 mm) Light attenuation in the scintillating fiber is not included Particles are fired from a distance of 7.5 meters Information is stored in a ROOT tree file which tracks the energy deposition in the fibers in each cell Energy, momentum and impact point from GEANT4 are saved for comparison GEANT4. 3 3 3

Example Events i ii Energy deposition (GeV) in fibers for a 20 GeV photon (i) and π0 (ii) Horizontal axes label the cell number 4

Molière Radius cm Radial distribution of shower energy in uniform mixture of tungsten and polystyrene. Molière radius at 90% was determined to be 2.5 cm. This result was also confirmed later for the actual fiber/block geometry. 5 5

Position and Energy Resolution (i) Mention, compensation for lead absorber require sampling fraction ~2.3% for mip GeV Energy deposition in the entire volume of fibers for single 10 GeV photons. Shows resolution of ~4% and sampling fraction of 2.4% 6 6

Position and Energy Resolution (ii) cm cm Position as determined by center of gravity method for 1k 10 GeV photons 7

Position and Energy Resolution (iii)

Identifying 2 Photon Events We aim to distinguish single photons from 2 photons by computing a weighted moment of the energy in the shower: Where w is a constant. The best value for w was determined to be .8, which gives 98% rejection of π0 at 80 GeV Rejection power vs energy. 9 9

Rudimentary Attempt to Reconstruct π0 Require two highest cells to be separated, i.e. two highest cells must have a lower cell between them or be diagonal to each other Use template shower from single photon event scaled to appropriate energy Divide energy from shared cells based on template shower Calculate center of gravity for each shower Apply correction function to center of gravity (see next slide)

Position reconstruction (20 GeV shown)

Invariant Mass Reconstruction (i) π0 energy clockwise from top left: 20 GeV, 40 GeV, 50 GeV

Invariant Mass Reconstruction (ii) 60 GeV 80 GeV

π0 Reconstruction: Mass Peak 14

π0 Reconstruction: Mass Width Plot: efficiency of pi0 reconstruction vs energy with this rudimental clusterfinder. 15 15

π0 Reconstruction: Efficiency The pion reconstruction efficiency as a function of energy. There is a distinct dip in efficiency in the 40-50 GeV range the reason for this is unclear.

π0 Reconstruction: Summary This method provides reasonable results for lower energy π0s. Noticeably worse in the 40-50 GeV region. This may be due to the typical photon separation being around 1.5 cell sizes. CM calculations may then produce large errors in opening angle. Beyond 80 GeV the photon separation is rarely large enough to have the two high cells be nonadjacent This method is inherently biased towards highly asymmetric decays 17

Fitting the Shower Shape The previous method used a reference shower from only one impact parameter This can make it weak at reconstructing showers where the impact point differs significantly from that of the reference We would prefer to reconstruct the showers by fitting them to a general shower shape function and extracting the relevant parameters from there 18 18

Determining the Shower Shape To determine a shower shape function photons at 50 GeV were fired uniformly over one cell face. The energy in all cells was recorded as a function of the radial distance from the impact point of the function This distribution was then normalized to create a single shower energy distribution Radial shower energy distribution x-axis in cm 19 19

Fitting the Shower Shape Attempted to fit the energy distribution projected onto a single axis (shown at right) Fitting function uses 4th order exponential to fit the sharp falloff and two Gaussians to fit the broad base Still have difficulty recreating the shape of the peak at the center Photon shower shape with fitting function of the form:

Conclusions and future work We have outlined the basic performance characteristics for a tungsten/fiber calorimeter We have also shown some basic ability to distinguish single and two photon events, and to reconstruct π0s Still must determine the best method for fitting showers. Appropriate fitting function? How much better is pion reconstruction at higher energies? Will a better procedure fix some of the problems with the current method? Begin looking at electron/hadron separation