The importance of fine granularity. The Soudan 2 experience and comparison with MINOS Peter Litchfield RAL Soudan 2 is a fine grained drift calorimeter.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
ISS meeting UCIrvine 21 August 2006 Alain Blondel 1 Evaluation of « optimal » segmentation for neutrino factory far detectors A. magnetized iron sampling.
Advertisements

Expected Sensitivity of the NO A  Disappearance Analysis Kirk Bays (Caltech) for the NO A Collaboration April 14, 2013 APS DPF Denver Kirk Bays, APS DPF.
Soudan 2 Peter Litchfield University of Minnesota For the Soudan 2 collaboration Argonne-Minnesota-Oxford-RAL-Tufts-Western Washington  Analysis of all.
Particle interactions and detectors
MINERvA Overview MINERvA is studying neutrino interactions in unprecedented detail on a variety of different nuclei Low Energy (LE) Beam Goals: – Study.
Off-axis Simulations Peter Litchfield, Minnesota  What has been simulated?  Will the experiment work?  Can we choose a technology based on simulations?
30 March Global Mice Particle Identification Steve Kahn 30 March 2004 Mice Collaboration Meeting.
An accelerator beam of muon neutrinos is manufactured at the Fermi Laboratory in Illinois, USA. The neutrino beam spectrum is sampled by two detectors:
Introduction to Hadronic Final State Reconstruction in Collider Experiments Introduction to Hadronic Final State Reconstruction in Collider Experiments.
Searching for Atmospheric Neutrino Oscillations at MINOS Andy Blake Cambridge University April 2004.
F.Sanchez (UAB/IFAE)ISS Meeting, Detector Parallel Meeting. Jan 2006 Low Energy Neutrino Interactions & Near Detectors F.Sánchez Universitat Autònoma de.
First Observations of Separated Atmospheric  and  Events in the MINOS Detector. A. S. T. Blake* (for the MINOS collaboration) *Cavendish Laboratory,
Preliminary Ideas for a Near Detector at a Neutrino Factory Neutrino Factory Scoping Study Meeting 23 September 2005 Paul Soler University of Glasgow/RAL.
Study of two pion channel from photoproduction on the deuteron Lewis Graham Proposal Phys 745 Class May 6, 2009.
CC ANALYSIS STUDIES Andy Blake Cambridge University Fermilab, September 2006.
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.
10/24/2005Zelimir Djurcic-PANIC05-Santa Fe Zelimir Djurcic Physics Department Columbia University Backgrounds in Backgrounds in neutrino appearance signal.
New results from K2K Makoto Yoshida (IPNS, KEK) for the K2K collaboration NuFACT02, July 4, 2002 London, UK.
Atmospheric Neutrino Oscillations in Soudan 2
MINERvA Overview MINERvA is studying neutrino interactions in unprecedented detail on a variety of different nuclei Low Energy (LE) Beam Goals: – Study.
Expected Sensitivity of the NO A  Disappearance Analysis Kirk Bays (Caltech) for the NO A Collaboration April 14, 2013 APS DPF Denver Kirk Bays, APS DPF.
Sampling Detectors for e Detection and Identification Adam Para, Fermilab NuFact02 Imperial College Interest de jour: what is sin 2 2  13  oscillations.
HARP for MiniBooNE Linda R. Coney Columbia University DPF 2004.
Minnesota Simulations Dan Hennessy, Peter Litchfield, Leon Mualem  Improvements to the Minnesota analysis  Comparison with the Stanford analysis  Optimisation.
5/1/20110 SciBooNE and MiniBooNE Kendall Mahn TRIUMF For the SciBooNE and MiniBooNE collaborations A search for   disappearance with:
PERFORMANCE OF THE MACRO LIMITED STREAMER TUBES IN DRIFT MODE FOR MEASUREMENTS OF MUON ENERGY - Use of the MACRO limited streamer tubes in drift mode -Use.
Large Magnetic Calorimeters Anselmo Cervera Villanueva University of Geneva (Switzerland) in a Nufact Nufact04 (Osaka, 1/8/2004)
Long Baseline Experiments at Fermilab Maury Goodman.
The NOvA Experiment Ji Liu On behalf of the NOvA collaboration College of William and Mary APS April Meeting April 1, 2012.
Latest Results from the MINOS Experiment Justin Evans, University College London for the MINOS Collaboration NOW th September 2008.
NESTOR SIMULATION TOOLS AND METHODS Antonis Leisos Hellenic Open University Vlvnt Workhop.
NuMI Off-Axis Experiment Alfons Weber University of Oxford & Rutherford Appleton Laboratory EPS2003, Aachen July 19, 2003.
Detector Monte-Carlo ● Goal: Develop software tools to: – Model detector performance – Study background issues – Calculate event rates – Determine feasibility.
Search for Electron Neutrino Appearance in MINOS Mhair Orchanian California Institute of Technology On behalf of the MINOS Collaboration DPF 2011 Meeting.
1 Performance of a Magnetised Scintillating Detector for a Neutrino Factory Scoping Study Meeting Rutherford Appleton Lab Tuesday 25 th April 2006 M. Ellis.
Mass Hierarchy Study with MINOS Far Detector Atmospheric Neutrinos Xinjie Qiu 1, Andy Blake 2, Luke A. Corwin 3, Alec Habig 4, Stuart Mufso 3, Stan Wojcicki.
Nucleon Decay Search in the Detector on the Earth’s Surface. Background Estimation. J.Stepaniak Institute for Nuclear Studies Warsaw, Poland FLARE Workshop.
Search for Sterile Neutrino Oscillations with MiniBooNE
Magnetized hadronic calorimeter and muon veto for the K +   +  experiment L. DiLella, May 25, 2004 Purpose:  Provide pion – muon separation (muon veto)
Beam Extrapolation Fit Peter Litchfield  An update on the method I described at the September meeting  Objective;  To fit all data, nc and cc combined,
Detector possibilities: scintillator based detectors EUCARD 1 st Annual Meeting, RAL, 13 April 2010 Paul Soler.
Neutrino Oscillations at Super-Kamiokande Soo-Bong Kim (Seoul National University)
A bin-free Extended Maximum Likelihood Fit + Feldman-Cousins error analysis Peter Litchfield  A bin free Extended Maximum Likelihood method of fitting.
00 Cooler CSB Direct or Extra Photons in d+d  0 Andrew Bacher for the CSB Cooler Collaboration ECT Trento, June 2005.
Medium baseline neutrino oscillation searches Andrew Bazarko, Princeton University Les Houches, 20 June 2001 LSND: MeVdecay at rest MeVdecay in flight.
1 Constraining ME Flux Using ν + e Elastic Scattering Wenting Tan Hampton University Jaewon Park University of Rochester.
Accelerator-based Long-Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Experiments Kam-Biu Luk University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Low Z Detector Simulations
Calice Meeting Argonne Muon identification with the hadron calorimeter Nicola D’Ascenzo.
April 26, McGrew 1 Goals of the Near Detector Complex at T2K Clark McGrew Stony Brook University Road Map The Requirements The Technique.
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.
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.
TeV muons: from data handling to new physics phenomena Vladimir Palichik JINR, Dubna NEC’2009 Varna, September 07-14, 2009.
Search for active neutrino disappearance using neutral-current interactions in the MINOS long-baseline experiment 2008/07/31 Tomonori Kusano Tohoku University.
NUMI NUMI/MINOS Status J. Musser for the MINOS Collatoration 2002 FNAL Users Meeting.
Measuring Oscillation Parameters Four different Hadron Production models  Four predicted Far  CC spectrum.
September 10, 2002M. Fechner1 Energy reconstruction in quasi elastic events unfolding physics and detector effects M. Fechner, Ecole Normale Supérieure.
A New Upper Limit for the Tau-Neutrino Magnetic Moment Reinhard Schwienhorst      ee ee
PAC questions and Simulations Peter Litchfield, August 27 th Extent to which MIPP/MINER A can help estimate far detector backgrounds by extrapolation.
Introduction to Hadronic Final State Reconstruction in Collider Experiments Introduction to Hadronic Final State Reconstruction in Collider Experiments.
Extrapolation Techniques  Four different techniques have been used to extrapolate near detector data to the far detector to predict the neutrino energy.
MIND Systematic Errors EuroNu Meeting, RAL 18 January 2010 Paul Soler.
Observation Gamma rays from neutral current quasi-elastic in the T2K experiment Huang Kunxian for half of T2K collaboration Mar. 24, Univ.
 CC QE results from the NOvA prototype detector Jarek Nowak and Minerba Betancourt.
Neutral Current Interactions in MINOS Alexandre Sousa, University of Oxford for the MINOS Collaboration Neutrino Events in MINOS Neutrino interactions.
J. Musser for the MINOS Collatoration 2002 FNAL Users Meeting
Wrong sign muons detection in a
High Energy Neutrino Detectors Day 2
LC Calorimeter Testbeam Requirements
Presentation transcript:

The importance of fine granularity. The Soudan 2 experience and comparison with MINOS Peter Litchfield RAL Soudan 2 is a fine grained drift calorimeter designed to detect proton decay. As well as proton decay we have studied atmospheric neutrinos and cosmic ray muons. What are the lessons we have learned about what is required to study these processes? MINOS has been studied as a detector for atmospheric neutrinos (but not for proton decay) and Soudan 2 as a detector for beam neutrinos. I compare the two to give some idea of how things scale with detector granularity.

Tube matrix Drift tubes encased in a “bandolier” assembly for insulation and easy assembly. The bandolier is fan-folded and stacked between the corrugated steel sheets

Soudan 2 Underground

Particle id  - long non-interacting track single particle p - straight, heavily ionising track Energy measured by range Blue-Green-Red-Black = ionisation  340 MeV p 110 MeV

e - shower, multiple tracks, gaps due to  propagation Energy from counting hits and/or total pulse height e 410 MeV

 +- - interacting track   NC event p  -  0

High energy event with an uncontained .

MINOS beam MC event  cc event E =2.1GeV  GeV  GeV (not seen) p GeV  GeV

MINOS beam event e cc event E GeV e GeV p GeV (not seen)

Proton Decay Advantages of calorimetry Very good vertex and track resolution Observation of ,K,p below Cherenkov threshold Good for high multiplicity channels Detection of protons reduces background Disadvantages Iron is a big nucleus, corrections for intra-nuclear absorption are large MC Data candidate

Proton Decay Analysis

Proton decay results No signal above background Most channels have neutrino background Our best candidate (e  )

Atmospheric Neutrinos What advantages does a fine grain calorimeter have over a water cherenkov? Lower  and  detection thresholds (~100 Mev/c), below cherenkov thresholds. But best oscillation information at high energies. Good particle ID and event reconstruction in high multiplicity events Detection of protons, particularly in quasi-elastic interactions. Addition of the proton much improves the neutrino direction measurement. ~40% of quasi- elastics have an observable proton. Higher density and better track and vertex resolution gives a higher percentage of useful fiducial volume (~70% for Soudan 2, c.f. 40%? for Super-K) Disadvantages? Mass, mass, mass. Particularly the lack of events at high neutrino energy where Super-K sees the biggest effects.

L/E Analysis E measured by full reconstruction of event L measured by the event direction (zenith angle) protons and low energy pions are seen and included in the reconstruction –define a “high resolution” sample with high energy quasi-elastics low energy quasi-elastics with seen proton high energy multiprongs Full Feldman-Cousins analysis of the data in progress

L/E fit   e Red Blue MC 

Results shown at Budapest      

Atmospheric in MINOS We have studied how MINOS can contribute to atmospheric neutrino physics. Much poorer granularity, higher event thresholds and worse flavour discrimination at low energies Good muon identification by range and good resolution in neutrino direction and energy at high energies where Super-K data shows the biggest effects. The magnetic field is a new feature not available in previous experiments; can separate neutrinos and anti-neutrinos and check invariance and flux calculations observe matter effects in any differences? Measure sign of  m 2 ? can measure the momenta of exiting  thus increasing acceptance and improving resolution can determine muon direction by slowing in the magnetic field

Soudan 2-MINOS Soudan 2 quantities are averaged over all directions, MINOS are for normal incidence MINOS - Steel/scintillator sandwich Soudan 2 MINOS Mass 960 tons 5400 tons Density 1.6gm/cc ~3.5gm/cc Steel thickness 1.6mm 25.4mm Mean sampling length ~3.5mm steel >25mm steel Hits/Radiation length ~5 <0.7 Hits/Interaction length ~45 <6 MeV/Shower hit ~ MeV  range ~200cm

High energy  event selection We select high energy events by requiring; A  track >1GeV by range Pulse height > 100 photo-electrons Require 3m length for uncontained  to allow momentum measurement Direction of muon determined by change of curvature in field while slowing vertex activity timing 407 events remain from an 18 kton year MC sample, a four year run. Practically pure sample of  cc events Practically 100% correct direction determination  energy resolution  10% from combination of range and curvature measurements

L/E distributions

MINOS sensitivity region  2 difference between the oscillated and unoscillated distributions calculated on a grid of points and the 90% confidence contour plotted Normalisation assumed known Super-K best fit

Parameter measurement sensitivity  m 2 =10 -3,sin 2 (2  )=1.0 Fixed normalisation

Beam oscillations We have studied the use of Soudan 2 in the MINOS neutrino beam and compared its sensitivity to MINOS. 1 kton of Soudan 2 versus 5kton of MINOS. Again the advantage of Soudan 2 is its good vertex and track resolution and sensitivity to low energy particles. Disappearance reactions with outgoing  For high energy events mass always wins For low energy events where the outgoing muons are contained within the hadron shower the fine granularity improves the event selection and background rejection However the MINOS beam runs out of steam at ~1GeV so the advantages of Soudan 2 are not realised, mass and MINOS always wins.

  e Appearance,   e Characteristics of electron production - short events with a shower profile and large energy deposit near the vertex. Main background is neutral current  0 production Good resolution and pattern recognition is vital to distinguish single from multiple showers Soudan 2 shower identification efficiency higher than MINOS at low energies for the same background.

NC event E GeV GeV n GeV  GeV  GeV,  GeV

Parameter distributions Number of hits Truth Neutrino energy Unoscillated beam e cc

  e NuMI-L- 576 New MINOS CHOOZ 90% C.L. THESEUS THESEUS (energy) 5 ktons of MINOS is better than 1 kton of Soudan 2. Probably 1 kton of Soudan 2  3 ktons of MINOS

    Analysis based on the identification of fast  by their secondary interactions. Soudan 2 has advantages in better separation of outgoing tracks and identification of secondary interactions. Unfortunately, for low  m2 there are very few  formed, particularly in the low energy beams which are best for the other measurements.

Comparison of  efficiencies

Comparison of sensitivities For low  m 2 1kton Soudan 2 is equivalent to 5kton MINOS

Soudan 2 Pluses Uniform honeycomb geometry. Important for proton decay and atmospheric neutrinos which can come from any direction. Not so important for a beam experiment where the predominant direction is known. Very good track and vertex resolution, mostly due to the fine granularity Good particle ID, e, , , proton Particles below cherenkov threshold observed. The higher density and good track resolution gives a much higher fraction of useful volume than a water cherenkov Relatively cheap (though not as cheap as water) and easy to build. Modules were built as a “cottage industry” in the home laboratories. 1 kton of detector cost ~$11M at 1990 prices. Robust and easy to operate. Ran for ~12 years at Soudan with very little trouble, 85-90% of calendar on time. Operated by our mine crew with very little physicist effort required.

Soudan 2 minuses Only 1 kton The ionisation measurement was never as good as had been hoped. Mainly due to the small size of the tube. The transverse position resolution of the track (~3mm) is comparable with the tube radius and thus the length of track in the gas has large errors. However the ionisation measurement is excellent for distinguishing protons from lighter particles. Track directionality for muons is not as good as in a water cherenkov. We find ~85% correct direction determination by eye for single muons using ionisation and coulomb scattering, worse by program. We had hoped that the ionisation rise for stopping particles would be a strong handle but the worse than expected ionisation resolution frustrated this. The directionality improves considerably with energy where coulomb scattering has most weight. Worst below ~200 Mev/c Tracking the particle through the steel to obtain a better energy measurement than assuming a uniform density never much improved the measurement again because of the comparability of the resolution and steel thickness. Not easy to add a magnetic field. Drifting may be affected by a field. Might be able to insert field region between module walls.

Comparison with other techniques Soudan 2 honeycomb v Planar drift chamber Uniformity of response with direction Less demanding tolerances for drift field Better length in gas and thus ionisation and range measurement Magnetic field? Soudan 2 honeycomb v Planar scintillator Uniformity of response with direction Much better granularity per $ Better ionisation measurement in dense material Magnetic field Soudan 2 honeycomb v water cherenkov Better track and vertex resolution Observation of particles below Cherenkov threshold Better fiducial volume fraction Better track directionality Cheaper, therefore more massive

Scaling up Soudan 2 The size of Soudan 2 modules was determined by the capacity of the mine hoist. It has a 5 ton weight limit and the modules essentially filled the cage. With no access limitations one could; increase the drift length, the current modules have about a 30% attenuation in 50cm drift increase the height and width dimensions maybe up to a factor 2 though handling might then become harder. Soudan 2’s granularity was plenty adequate for proton decay. Atmospheric neutrinos are most interesting at the higher energies (>500MeV). The steel thickness could be increased, maybe up to a factor 2 (1.6mm  3mm?). The tube diameter could be increased, helping the ionisation and range measurements and the attenuation with a longer drift length. Electronics has become much cheaper since the mid 1980s. We could either read out the detector with a lot of summing of channels as before but much cheaper or read out each channel separately for little extra cost.

Scaling up Soudan 2 It might be possible to halve the cost of building Soudan 2 per kiloton and maintain the advantages of the fine granularity. A 20 kton detector which would have approximately equal useful event rates but better resolution and event identification than Super-K might cost $ M at today’s prices.