A Study of Mapping for g2p instead of Reconstruction? Jixie Zhang Nov 27, 2012.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Measuring the Neutron and 3 He Spin Structure at Low Q 2 Vincent Sulkosky College of William and Mary, Williamsburg VA Experimental Overview The.
Advertisements

Measurement of F 2 and F L at low Q 2 in ep Interactions at HERA  H1 and ZEUS analyses at low Q 2  Extraction of F L  Summary and Outlook Tomáš Laštovička.
Low x workshop Helsinki 2007 Joël Feltesse 1 Inclusive F 2 at low x and F L measurement at HERA Joël Feltesse Desy/Hamburg/Saclay On behalf of the H1 and.
E : HRS Cross Section Analyses Vincent Sulkosky Massachusetts Institute of Technology GMp Collaboration Meeting September 24 th, 2012.
Jin Huang & Vincent Sulkosky Massachusetts Institute of Technology Boson 2010 Workshop Sept 20, JLab.
June 6 th, 2011 N. Cartiglia 1 “Measurement of the pp inelastic cross section using pile-up events with the CMS detector” How to use pile-up.
Angular resolution of LAT Agnieszka Kowal University of Science and Technology, Cracow TESLA Workshop on Forward Calorimetry Cracow, 10 October 2003.
Pair Spectrometer Design Optimization Pair Spectrometer Design Optimization A. Somov, Jefferson Lab GlueX Collaboration Meeting September
2015/6/23 1 How to Extrapolate a Neutrino Spectrum to a Far Detector Alfons Weber (Oxford/RAL) NF International Scoping Study, RAL 27 th April 2006.
1 st Study of Tracker Misalignments with G4MICE David Forrest University of Glasgow.
MC Study on B°  J/  ° With J/      °     Jianchun Wang Syracuse University BTeV meeting 03/04/01.
Zhihong Ye Hampton University Feb. 16 th 2010, APS Meeting, Washington DC Data Analysis Strategy to Obtain High Precision Missing Mass Spectra For E
T. Horn, SHMS Optics Update SHMS Optics Update Tanja Horn Hall C Users Meeting 31 January 2009.
Bogdan Wojtsekhowski, Jefferson Lab Experimental search for A’ for APEX collaboration 1.
Min Huang Duke University, TUNL On Behalf of the E g2p collaboration Hall A Analysis Workshop, 12/12/12.
GRD - Collimation Simulation with SIXTRACK - MIB WG - October 2005 LHC COLLIMATION SYSTEM STUDIES USING SIXTRACK Ralph Assmann, Stefano Redaelli, Guillaume.
Spectroscopic Investigation of P-shell Λ hypernuclei by the (e,e'K + ) Reaction - Analysis Update of the Jlab Experiment E Chunhua Chen Hampton.
Nov.29,2011/HU group meeting Spectroscopic Investigation of P-shell Λ hypernuclei by (e,e'K + ) - Analysis Updated Status - Chunhua Chen Hampton Universithy.
Status of the Beamline Simulation A.Somov Jefferson Lab Collaboration Meeting, May 11, 2010.
HRSMC, A Geant4 Simulation for HRS Jixie Zhang CREX Collaboration Meeting April 2014 Jixie Zhang1April 2014.
HKS Analysis Status Report HKS Analysis Status Report Liguang Tang (Hampton/JLAB) Hall C User Meeting, Jan. 15, 2011 HKS has data taken in 2005 (E01-011)
Javier CastilloLHC Alignment Workshop - CERN - 05/09/ Alignment of the ALICE MUON Spectrometer Javier Castillo CEA/Saclay.
GEM MINIDRIFT DETECTOR WITH CHEVRON READOUT EIC Tracking Meeting 10/6/14 B.Azmoun, BNL.
SHMS Optics Studies Tanja Horn JLab JLab Hall C meeting 18 January 2008.
Impact parameter resolution study for ILC detector Tomoaki Fujikawa (Tohoku university) ACFA Workshop in Taipei Nov
E Analysis update Adjust of the Splitter-HKS Side Yuncheng Han May 09, 2012 Hampton University JLab hypernuclear collaboration meeting.
PrimEx collaboration meeting Energy calibration of the Hall B bremsstrahlung tagging system using magnetic pair spectrometer S. Stepanyan (JLAB)
Hypernuclei Production Experiment E05115 at Jefferson Laboratory by the (e,e’K + ) Reaction Chunhua Chen March 31, 2012  Introduction  Experimental Setup.
M. Dugger, February Triplet polarimeter study Michael Dugger* Arizona State University *Work at ASU is supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation.
Mitglied der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Calibration of the COSY-TOF STT & pp Elastic Analysis Sedigheh Jowzaee IKP Group Talk 11 July 2013.
APEX Septum Analysis G.M. Urciuoli. Comparison between PREX septum field (from SNAKE input), and APEX septum field (from TOSCA simulations). Y axis.
Update on the Hall C Monte Carlo simulation for 12 GeV Mark Jones.
V.Petracek TU Prague, UNI Heidelberg GSI Detection of D +/- hadronic 3-body decays in the CBM experiment ● D +/- K  B. R. 
APS April Meeting Detector Construction of the Forward Proton Detector at D0 Michael Strang University of Texas at Arlington Diffractive Events FPD.
Secondary Vertex reconstruction for the D + Elena Bruna University of Torino ALICE Physics Week Erice, Dec. 6 th 2005.
Pad design present understanding Tel Aviv University HEP Experimental Group Ronen Ingbir Collaboration High precision design Tel-Aviv Sep.05 1.
E Precision Measurement of the Neutron Magnetic Form Factor up to Q 2 =13.5 (GeV/c) 2 by the Ratio Method B. Quinn, J. Annand, R. Gilman, B. Wojtsekhowski.
Geant4 Tracking Test (D. Lunesu)1 Daniela Lunesu, Stefano Magni Dario Menasce INFN Milano GEANT4 TRACING TESTs.
1 Design of active-target TPC. Contents I.Physics requirements II.Basic structure III.Gas property IV.Electric field Distortion by ground Distortion of.
Charmonium Production in 920 GeV Proton-Nucleus Interactions Presented by Wolfgang Gradl for the HERA-B
H1 FPS + ZEUS LPS1 FPS/LPS Combination Preliminary request M.Ruspa, V. Sola, M.Kapishin, R.Polifka.
__________________________________ C. Avila, small x workshop, Sep ELASTIC SCATTERING IN D0 EXPERIMENT Carlos Avila Universidad de Los Andes Bogota,
E97-110: Small Angle GDH Experimental Status Report E97-110: Small Angle GDH Experimental Status Report Vincent Sulkosky Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
SBS Magnet, Optics, and Spin Transport John J. LeRose with help from David Hamilton and others Technical Review of the Super BigBite Spectrometer January.
A First Look At VERITAS Data Stephen Fegan Vladimir Vassiliev UCLA.
D 0 reconstruction: 15 AGeV – 25 AGeV – 35 AGeV M.Deveaux, C.Dritsa, F.Rami IPHC Strasbourg / GSI Darmstadt Outline Motivation Simulation Tools Results.
Jan. 18, 2008 Hall C Meeting L. Yuan/Hampton U.. Outline HKS experimental goals HKS experimental setup Issues on spectrometer system calibration Calibration.
 0 life time analysis updates, preliminary results from Primex experiment 08/13/2007 I.Larin, Hall-B meeting.
Progress Report on GEANT Study of Containerized Detectors R. Ray 7/11/03 What’s New Since Last Time?  More detailed container description in GEANT o Slightly.
06/2006I.Larin PrimEx Collaboration meeting  0 analysis.
Measurement of Exclusive  - Electro-production from the Neutron in the Resonance Region Jixie Zhang Physics Department Old Dominion University 11/30/2006.
STAR Simulation. Status and plans V. Perevoztchikov Brookhaven National Laboratory,USA.
1 Kenematic Calibration of Hypernuclear Missing Mass by using Geant4 simulation Outline: 1, Data Generating 2, Kenematics Calibration a) E 0 &P Calibration.
M. Ellis - MICE Collaboration Meeting - Wednesday 27th October Sci-Fi Tracker Performance Software Status –RF background simulation –Beam simulation.
Jin Huang Brookhaven National Lab ● Optics General ● Test Run Calibration ● Comment on Full Runs Trying to collect materials from three years ago. May.
Quarkonia production with the HERA-B experiment J. Spengler, MPI Heidelberg.
HRSMC, The Geant4 Simulation Program for G2P|GEP Jixie Zhang 10/30/2012.
Min Huang g2p/GEp Collaboration Meeting April 18, 2011.
Jixie’s Analysis Status Jixie Zhang Sep. 22th, 2010.
Jixie Zhang1 A Geant4 Simulation for RTPC 12 Jixie Zhang University of Virginia Spectator Tagging Workshop March 11, 2014.
NIPHAD meeting 16 September 2005, T. Cornelissen 1 Tracking results in the testbeam Thijs Cornelissen.
y x Vincenzo Monaco, University of Torino HERA-LHC workshop 18/1/2005
Alpine, very forward, EOS…
Huagen Xu IKP: T. Randriamalala, J. Ritman and T. Stockmanns
Analysis Test Beam Pixel TPC
SBS Magnet, Optics, and Spin Transport
Validating Magnets Using Beam
COMPTON ANALYSIS REPORT
Hall C Users Meeting 31 January 2009
Design of active-target TPC
Presentation transcript:

A Study of Mapping for g2p instead of Reconstruction? Jixie Zhang Nov 27, 2012

Kenimatic Coverage 5.0 T target field, Delta covers +/- 4.5% Sieve Plane Focal Plane Target Plane First of all, select 4-D bins in the Focal Plane or the Sieve Plane then look at the distribution of x,theta,y,phi at the Target Plane 2

Map The Focal Plane, Binned by Sieve Plane Focal Plane Target Plane Select 4-D bins in the Focal Plane, look at the distribution of x,theta,y,phi at the Target Plane 3

Map Focal Plane, Binned by Sieve Plane Focal Plane Target Plane Change to smaller 4-D grid in the Focal Plane will not reduce the distribution width in the Target Plane 4

CPU Time Cost for Doing Mapping at FP Number of events: Assuming x-theta-y-phi are binned as 2mm-2mr-2mm-2mr, each bin need to simulate 100 events in average, the total number of Focal Plane events will be: 100 x 600 x 110 x 50 x 35 = M Considering only 40% of the thrown events can reach the Focal Plane, the total number of thrown events will be: /40% = M CPU Time: For 5T target field, it costs about 1.5 hours to run one million thrown events with one CPU. The total CPU time will be: x 1.5 = (hours/CPU) Or 602 farm jobs if each job run for 72 hours. (15 days if 128 jobs are running parallely.) Coverage in FP: -600<x< <theta< <y< <phi<0.046 Bin Width: BinWidth_x=2mm BinWidth_theta=2mr BinWidth_y=2mm BinWidth_phi=2mr Number of Bins: NumBin_x=600 NumBin_theta=110 NumBin_y=50 NumBin_phi=35 5

If Bin The Focal Plane by Number of events can be reduced by a factor of 2.5 4, almost 40. CPU Time: /40 = 1082 (hours/CPU) Or 128 farm jobs if each job run for 8 hours. Somewhat practicable. The HRSMC program can run about 2-3 times faster if reconstruction and Drift-In- Field module are both turned off. These modules are not needed if we decided to do mapping. The event generator can also be improved such that less events need to be generatated. This might reduce the total CPU time to 75%. 6

Map Sieve Plane, Binned by Sieve Plane Focal Plane Target Plane Select 4-D bins in the Sieve Plane, look at the distribution of x,theta,y,phi at the Target Plane 7

Map Sieve Plane, Binned by Change to smaller 4-D grid in the Sieve Plane will not reduce the distribution width of Theta in the Target Plane 8

If we do mapping at Sieve Plane... Number of events: Assuming x-theta-y-phi are binned as 2mm-2mr-2mm-2mr, each bin need to have 100 events hit the focal plane, the total number of Focal Plane events will be: 100 x 46 x 50 x 25 x 28 = 161 M Considering only 40% of the thrown events can reach the Focal Plane, the total number of thrown events will be: /40% = M CPU Time: For 5T target field, it costs about 1.5 hours to run one million thrown events with one CPU. The total CPU time will be: x 1.5 = (hours/CPU) Or 128 farm jobs if each job run for 5 hours. Coverage in FP: -46<x< <theta< <y< <phi<0.030 Bin Width: BinWidth_x=2mm BinWidth_theta=2mr BinWidth_y=2mm BinWidth_phi=2mr Number of Bins: NumBin_x=46 NumBin_theta=50 NumBin_y=25 NumBin_phi=28 If binned by , the CPU time will increase by a factor of 16. 9

Resolution of Reconstruction 10

Summary To do mapping, we have to solve the discrepancy between the snake forward model and the real spectrometer first. This can be done by fitting the real optics sieve data. For those data set that a straight throught optics runs were not taken, we have to use mapping other than reconstruction. A practicable 4-D bin width for mapping in the Focal Plane is (mm or mrad of x-theta-y-phi). Mapping in the Sieve Plane gridded by is also feasible in CPU time, but introducing the uncertainty of the straight throught reconstruction in the results. Need to study how precise can we determine the mean value for a given distribution. We should weight the data by its cross section. How precise can it determine the mean value is not studied yet. The uncertainty of reconstruction method for each event will be dominated by the vertex z position. In overall, we can reach 4.8 mrad for the scattering angle for each event. 11