ACD Subsystem ACD segmentation and the

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
NDVCS measurement with BoNuS RTPC M. Osipenko December 2, 2009, CLAS12 Central Detector Collaboration meeting.
Advertisements

Stefan Roesler SC-RP/CERN on behalf of the CERN-SLAC RP Collaboration
Alex Moiseev, 02/01/021 ACD VETO SIGNALS AND EFFICIENCY With the recent changes, the following ACD VETO signals will be generated: AEM VETO HIT MAP, created.
The Gamma-Ray Large Area Space Telescope: UNDERSTANDING THE MOST POWERFUL ENERGY SOURCES IN THE UNIVERSE Anticoincidence Detector for GLAST Alexander Moiseev,
Impact of LHCf on BRAN and beam monitoring Y.Itow, H.Menjo (Nagoya University) The 1 st TAN integration workshop Mar10, 2006.
Off-axis Simulations Peter Litchfield, Minnesota  What has been simulated?  Will the experiment work?  Can we choose a technology based on simulations?
Hardware Failure Impacts Exercises S. Ritz. Issues Recent results from design reliability analysis (system engineering, Thurston et al.) Probabilities.
Jun 27, 2005S. Kahn -- Ckov1 Simulation 1 Ckov1 Simulation and Performance Steve Kahn June 27, 2005 MICE Collaboration PID Meeting.
Alex Moiseev NASA/GSFC 12/16/2005 Some ACD Calibration issues I.ACD mip peak monitoring 1. ACD mip peak monitoring requires the measurements to be done.
30 Ge & Si Crystals Arranged in verticals stacks of 6 called “towers” Shielding composed of lead, poly, and a muon veto not described. 7.6 cm diameter.
RF background, analysis of MTA data & implications for MICE Rikard Sandström, Geneva University MICE Collaboration Meeting – Analysis session, October.
R 3 B Gamma Calorimeter Agenda. ● Introduction ● Short presentation on the first ● Task definition for R&D period ( )
GLAST LAT ProjectIntegration and Test CDR Peer Review, March 28, 2003 Document: LAT-PR Section 8 - Page 1 GLAST Large Area Telescope: I & T Peer.
SHMS Optics and Background Studies Tanja Horn Hall C Summer Meeting 5 August 2008.
SuperNEMO Simulations Darren Price University of Manchester July, 2005.
PoGO_G4_ ppt1 Study on Key Properties of PoGO by Geant4 Simulator January 28, 2004 Tsunefumi Mizuno History of changes:
Gus Sinnis Asilomar Meeting 11/16/2003 The Next Generation All-Sky VHE Gamma-Ray Telescope.
Ivan Smiljanić Vinča Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia Energy resolution and scale requirements for luminosity measurement.
Feb. 7, 2007First GLAST symposium1 Measuring the PSF and the energy resolution with the GLAST-LAT Calibration Unit Ph. Bruel on behalf of the beam test.
The NA62 rare kaon decay experiment Photon Veto System Vito Palladino for NA62 Coll.
BES-III Workshop Oct.2001,Beijing The BESIII Luminosity Monitor High Energy Physics Group Dept. of Modern Physics,USTC P.O.Box 4 Hefei,
Cosmic rays at sea level. There is in nearby interstellar space a flux of particles—mostly protons and atomic nuclei— travelling at almost the speed of.
1ECFA/Vienna 16/11/05D.R. Ward David Ward Compare these test beam data with Geant4 and Geant3 Monte Carlos. CALICE has tested an (incomplete) prototype.
PHOTON RECONSTRUCTION IN CMS APPLICATION TO H   PHOTON RECONSTRUCTION IN CMS APPLICATION TO H   Elizabeth Locci SPP/DAPNIA, Saclay, France Prague.
June 6, 2006 CALOR 2006 E. Hays University of Chicago / Argonne National Lab VERITAS Imaging Calorimetry at Very High Energies.
Magnetized hadronic calorimeter and muon veto for the K +   +  experiment L. DiLella, May 25, 2004 Purpose:  Provide pion – muon separation (muon veto)
10/10/2005 Alex Moiseev 2006 LAT Beam test 1 Suggestions to 2006 LAT prototype beam test plan Alex Moiseev, NASA/GSFC.
00 Cooler CSB Direct or Extra Photons in d+d  0 Andrew Bacher for the CSB Cooler Collaboration ECT Trento, June 2005.
Progress report of the GLAST ACD Beam Test at CERN (Backsplash study) simulation and analysis Tsunefumi Mizuno, Hirofumi Mizushima (Hiroshima Univ.) and.
High-energy Electron Spectrum From PPB-BETS Experiment In Antarctica Kenji Yoshida 1, Shoji Torii 2 on behalf of the PPB-BETS collaboration 1 Shibaura.
RF background, update on analysis Rikard Sandström, Geneva University MICE Analysis phone conference, October 30, 2007.
In high energy astrophysics observations, it is crucial to reduce the background effectively to achieve a high sensitivity, for the source intensity is.
PoGO_G4_ ppt1 Study of optimized fast scintillator length for the astronomical hard X- ray/soft gamma-ray polarimeter PoGO November 1, 2004 Tsunefumi.
1 Suggestions to 2006 LAT prototype beam test plan Alex Moiseev, NASA/GSFC.
PoGO_G4_ ppt1 Study of BGO/Collimator Optimization for PoGO August 8th, 2005 Tsunefumi Mizuno, Hiroshima University/SLAC
1 Study of Data from the GLAST Balloon Prototype Based on a Geant4 Simulator Tsunefumi Mizuno February 22, Geant4 Work Shop The GLAST Satellite.
Feb. 3, 2007IFC meeting1 Beam test report Ph. Bruel on behalf of the beam test working group Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope.
FP-CCD GLD VERTEX GROUP Presenting by Tadashi Nagamine Tohoku University ILC VTX Ringberg Castle, May 2006.
Simulation of feedback BPM signals in an intense background environment A Hartin, P Burrows, G Christian, C Clarke, B Constance, H Khah, C Perry, C Swinson.
Acd Veto Latching The Acd front end electronics generate a veto primitive when a discriminator goes above threshold. But. The signal is split: One path.
Muons in IceCube PRELIMINARY
Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope ACD Final Performance
Comparison of GAMMA-400 and Fermi-LAT telescopes
GLAST LAT tracker signal simulation and trigger timing study
GAMMA-400 performance a,bLeonov A., a,bGalper A., bKheymits M., aSuchkov S., aTopchiev N., bYurkin Y. & bZverev V. aLebedev Physical Institute of the Russian.
Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope
Neutron and 9Li Background Calculations
Fermi LAT Limits on High-Energy Gamma Lines from WIMP Annihilation
of secondary light ion beams
Update on GEp GEM Background Rates
Monte Carlo studies of the configuration of the charge identifier
Jin Huang Los Alamos National Lab
Detector Configuration for Simulation (i)
Gamma-ray Albedo of the Moon Igor V. Moskalenko (Stanford) & Troy A
Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope
of Neutrons produced by
Radiation Backgrounds in the ATLAS New Small Wheel
CRaTER Science Requirements
Using Single Photons for WIMP Searches at the ILC
Imaging crystals with TKR
Higgs Factory Backgrounds
ACD transparency - gaps between tiles - holes in tile to attach them
Forward-Backward Asymmetry Study in
Search for Narrow Resonance Decaying to Muon Pairs in 2.3 fb-1
CALET-CALによる ガンマ線観測初期解析
Detecting dark matter through line emission
CR Photon Working Group
Background Simulations at Fermilab
ACD Analysis Status Work done by Taro Kotani. Much help from Heather. Advice from Ormes, Hartman, Moiseev, Norris, Ritz, Thompson… Main issues: Hermeticity.
Overview of Beam Test Benoit, Ronaldo and Eduardo Nov 8 , 2005 thanks to Steve and Bill for helping to consolidate all the information.
Presentation transcript:

GLAST ACD Segmentation Trade Study March 6, 2001 Analysis by Alex Moiseev and J. F. Ormes ACD Subsystem ACD segmentation and the efficiency requirement at 300 GeV March 13, 2001 IDT phone call Jonathan F. Ormes Goddard Space Flight Center JFO@LHEAPOP.GSFC.NASA.GOV (301) 286-5705 or 286-6066

Study Motivation The goal is to understand the impact on the LAT effective area and geometry factor if the number of ACD tiles is reduced. Since the overall ACD dimensions are frozen, reducing the tile number implies using larger tiles. Larger tile area results in higher self-veto probability, which reduces the GLAST sensitivity, increasingly at higher energy. The goal of the study is to determine the importance of this effect in a specific case. Current ACD design has 145 tiles (290 channels). An additional 16 (TBR) channels for scintillating fibers tapes if needed to seal the gaps. Reducing number of tiles would save Money and time - handling, testing and integrating. Power, parts and complexity (and a little mass) Remove any remaining concerns about “real estate” for electronics

Not a background study Eventually, the impact of any change is segmentation must be vetted in GLASTSIM. There is no efficient way to do this at the present time. Background rejection does have cuts on number of tiles hit but because of the way this cut is used, changing the segmentation will have a negligible impact (S. Ritz, 2000). Otherwise the segmentation in the bottom two rows is not currently used in the background cuts. Selection/background rejection cuts for high energy electrons are now being developed by Taro Kotani and Steve Ritz. Need 0.9 from the tracker to go with 0.9997 ACD efficiency to reach required <1 false photon in 3x104 electrons 0.9 is just the live fractional area of a tracker layer Probably ok for top entry Side entry requires some “fiducial volume” cut No one has yet validated this number by simulation or determined the effect of this cut on effective area.

Segmentation trade study 25 tiles on the top, 120 on the sides Lower two rows dominate 80 tiles nearest calorimeter Do analysis at 300 GeV The self-veto problem increases as a function of energy The required depth of calorimeter to obtain a given energy resolution also increases as a function of energy Self-veto and hence ACD segmentation affects both projected effective area Ap and geometry factor AW, “G” Science most affected: search for gamma ray lines Point sources of dark matter Galactic center Clumps in the halo Isotropic high latitude diffuse component from galactic halo

Sensitivity to gamma-ray lines GLAST sensitivity for the “dark matter point source” such as the Galactic Center and for a high latitude diffuse component I and E are the line intensity and energy, n is the desired significance (in ), =DE/E is the relative energy resolution (half width containing 68% of events), 2E is the bin width, Acal is the sensitive area, T is the observation time, ft is the fraction of time (~0.25) during which the source lies in a good direction, FGC is the differential gamma-radiation from the source, Fb is the background flux, =10-3 sr is the point-spread function for the calorimeter, and AcalW is the geometric factor. The lower Ig, the better. Off axis, calorimeter gets thicker, and h decreases but so does A.

Tile segmentation requirement Requirement flowdown from SRD Effective area on axis: >8000 cm2, goal >12,000 cm2 Peak, 1-10 GeV, including loss due to background rejection Energy resolution: 0.1-10 GeV, <10%, goal 8% Energy resolution >60o, >10 GeV: <6%, goal <3% SRD does not specify the effective area we need at >60o Explanatory footnote: "Effective area for side incidence is 0.1 to 0.2 that of normal incidence for high resolution measurements." DE/E Goal implies calorimeter depth of 15-18 (TBR) Xo Don’t forget electron background rejection Selection: we must require at lease one tracker layer with "no- hit" be in the path of these events and the ACD must not be "hit" either.

LAT systems specification LAT Performance Specification 5.2.1 Energy range: 20 MeV to >300 GeV, Aeff >300 cm2 (TBR) at 20 MeV, >3000 cm2 at 100 MeV, >6400 cm2 (TBR) at 300 GeV. Goal: >1000 cm2 at 20 MeV, >8000 cm2 at 100 MeV and >9500 cm2 at 1 TeV. LAT Performance Specification 5.2.2 Resolution: normal incidence gamma rays <50% (TBR) 20 - 100 MeV, <10% 0.1 - 10 GeV, <20% (TBR) 10 - 300 GeV. Resolution goal: >60 degrees off-axis: <3% above 10 GeV. LAT Performance Specification 5.2.3 Peak effective area: >8000 cm2 after background rejection Peak effective area goal: >10000 cm2 after background rejection

ACD Level 3 specification As of today, the DRAFT ACD Level 3 subsystem specification says: 5.6: False VETO due to Calorimeter Backsplash <20% of otherwise accepted gamma-ray events at 300 GeV shall be rejected by false VETOs due to calorimeter backsplash Can meet the LAT Requirement: Aeff >6400 cm2 (TBR) at 300 GeV. Goal: >9500 cm2 at 1 TeV. If peak Aeff at 10 GeV meets 8000 cm2 spec, then 0.8 x 8000 = 6400 cm2. This led to >0.8 ACD Level 3 specification

ACD: Backsplash Measurements Backsplash measured from 5 to 300 GeV (SLAC and CERN) Agrees with simulations to approximately factor of 2 Spectra are different Angular distributions are different Where E is the energy of incident electron/photon in GeV Ethr is the threshold value in units of mip X is the distance from the top of calorimeter A is area in cm2 Pbacksplash is the probability that there was an energy deposition above Ethr in 1cm scintillator SLAC-97 CERN-99 CERN-99 (ACCESS calorimeter)

Simulation studies Design segmentation to measurements. GEANT-3 and GLASTSIM studies were made to compare with measurements of backsplash (Edeposit > 200 keV) Unresolved differences at high angle (90o to beam): GEANT sims give 2 x more than observed GLASTSIM gives 2.5 times fewer photons crossing the ACD than GEANT Unresolved differences near beam in GLASTSIM (ok in GEANT) Did not produce observed isotropic distribution Did not produce energy dependence GEANT-3 studies by Alex SLAC beam test '97 Sims 40% below measured Reproduce proper angular distribution within 60o of beam CERN test with deeper 40Xo Pb/SciFi calorimeter Sims ~25-40% low at 20 GeV decreasing to 10% at 1 TeV Sims suggest steeper slope than observed GEANT self-veto probabilities are <40% low. GLASTSIM would be even lower Design segmentation to measurements.

Distribution of number of tiles hit Glastsim 300 GeV Isotropic incidence 145 tiles o: electrons |: gamma rays Fraction of total Note: GLASTSIM is probably not simulating these numbers correctly. Number of veto tiles hit By Taro Kotani

Design configurations Baseline (145) Reduced segmentation (105)

Study Approach Designs being compared “baseline design” (aka Proposal design) “reduced segmentation design” (aka design “A”) Configurations were illuminated by muons muons exclude interactions studying only geometric effects uniform flux over the ACD 2 cases were studied: isotropic flux to study the Geometric factor, G = AW parallel flux (as function of zenith angle  and for =0o and 45o) to study effective area A Illumination was separable into events entering the instrument through the top of the ACD (Tracker) and separately through each side tile row.

Study Approach (cont.) The events were required to enter >6 cm above the bottom of ACD (top of the calorimeter). This reflects the requirement for the events to pass at least 2 Si planes. The self-veto of false hit probability was calculated using the formula obtained by beam tests at SLAC and CERN (Moiseev and Ormes, in preparation). For every event the path in the calorimeter, the distance between the entry points to the ACD and the calorimeter were calculated. This distance corresponds to x in the formula. An energy of 300 GeV and a VETO threshold of 0.3 mip were used in the simulations. Calorimeter was assumed to be 20cm (8.5Xo) thick. Paths were required to traverse both the top and bottom surfaces of the calorimeter. Probability of backsplash was calculated for known tile area.

Impact on Area and Geometry Total height of side = 70 cm above calorimeter. Entry must be >6cm above top of calorimeter to traverse 2 tracker layers. Our effective area Point sources or geometry factor Isotropic source at a given energy resolution depends on the depth of calorimeter desired. Row heights on side Front to Back Aka Top to Bottom 25, 20, 15, 15 cm

Projected area, top + side entry Line 1 (black) - projected area vs.. Incident angle Azimuthal angle extremes >8.5 Xo and >15Xo Line 2 (red) - same, reduced for backsplash Line 3 (blue) - same as red, reduced segmentation in 3-rd and 4-th rows

Projected area reduced for self-veto: 300 GeV Top plus all 4 ACD side rows are used; events are required to enter 6 cm above the calorimeter. Line 1 - baseline Line 2 - reduced segmentation

Effective Area reduction Ratio of effective area of reduced segmentation design to that for baseline design as function of incidence angle. Backsplash is included. Required path in calorimeter is 8.5X0. All events entering GLAST through the top and sides. All 4 ACD side rows are used Events are allowed to enter 6cm above the calorimeter. Azimuthal angle  = 00 = 450

Baseline geometry factor, “G” G(Xo) = AW(Xo) Integral geometry factor (area x solid angle) for LAT for paths greater than Xo as a function of path length in Xo (radiation lengths). Note that more than 1/3 of LAT’s “G” has Xo > 16 radiation lengths. Top and sides 1 Incident Backsplash reduced: 2 Baseline design 3 Reduced segmentation Top only 4 Incident 5 backsplash reduced Top only

Baseline design: loss due to self veto 300 GeV L 3 spec  8.5 Xo 15 Xo Overall geometry through side and top (S+T) meets the requirement of 80% acceptance. The loss through the side is worst through the bottom row of tiles nearest to the calorimeter.

Reduced segmentation: loss due to self veto New L 3 spec??  8.5 Xo 15 Xo Tile size on bottom two rows is doubled in reduced segmentation design. The overall effect is to reduce the effective geometry at 300 GeV <27% relative to that when there is no self-veto effect.

Reduced segmentation design relative to baseline 8.5 Xo 15 Xo Conclusion: Doubling the size of the tiles on the lower two rows will decrease the geometry factor of LAT to an isotropic background by 10±2%. LAT would still have >1/3 of its “G” with >16 Xo.

ACD Level 3 specification As of today, the DRAFT ACD Level 3 subsystem specification says: 5.6: False VETO due to Calorimeter Backsplash <20% of otherwise accepted gamma-ray events at 300 GeV shall be rejected by false VETOs due to calorimeter backsplash Assuming peak Aeff (at ~10 GeV) >8000 cm2 Baseline meets LAT Requirement: Aeff >6400 cm2 (TBR) at 300 GeV. Cannot reach the Goal: >9500 cm2 at 1 TeV. Showed >0.73 can be attained w/ reduced segmentation proposed To meet all requirements as stated, the Effective area at 10 GeV would have to be >6400cm2/0.73 = 8770 cm2 Therefore I recommend changing Level 3 spec to read: <30% of otherwise accepted gamma-ray events at 300 GeV shall be rejected by false VETOs due to calorimeter backsplash Implies Aeff could be as low as 5600 cm2

Summary For baseline design, the geometric area self-veto reduction is <25%. Reduced segmentation design further reduces the effective area by less than an additional 8.5% (worst case). With Baseline design we meet “20% self-veto reduction at 300 GeV” requirements. Reduced segmentation design reduces GLAST geometry factor by less than 10% additional at 300 GeV. For longer paths in the calorimeter the new design has slightly more G reduction (about 12%).

Conclusions Change the L3 additional loss specification from 20% to 30% In LAT Performance Specification 5.2.1 Change: “>6400 cm2 (TBR) at 300 GeV” To: “>5600 cm2 at 300 GeV” Proceed to PDR with reduced segmentation in bottom two rows on side 105 tiles instead of 145 tiles Each side row would have 5 tiles No way to reach goal of Aeff >9500 cm2 at 1 TeV. Estimate 60% self-veto at 1 TeV Meeting Peak Aeff goal of 10,000 cm2  4000 cm2 at TeV Since electrons are relatively less of a problem at higher energies, we might do better by using the tracker as a self-shielded device.

Further work Determine calorimeter depth necessary to get required off-axis energy resolution of 6% (goal 6%). Validate use of “calorimeter only” events entering through the back 15 cm. Determine off-axis energy resolution as function of path length in calorimeter. Electron background rejection and loss of effective G and Aeff. 10 GeV worst case Higher energies as electron flux decreases relative to gs Study use of tracker as a self-shielded device at energies above 300 GeV. Self-veto becomes 2.2 x more serious at 1 TeV Use very fine segmentation of tracker Assure simulations correctly reproduce backsplash results.