1. ABSORPTION LENGTH MEASUREMENT: status after “the shadowing effect” HAROLD YEPES-RAMIREZ IFIC, July 22 nd 2011 1

2. 2 METHODOLOGY AFTER THE FOUNDED “SHADOWING” EFFECT : 1.Update antares-daq + ROOT  Now antares-daq release January 2011 + ROOT 5.28 2.Install last version of analysis software by Ciro  HistoFiller (I couldn’t! I used Joaquin’s version) 3.Process all golden runs under HistoFiller: Walk effect option:1 X-talk effect option: 0 (since some run there is not available corrections  Ciro? Joaquín?) Golden runs: run >= 41605 (HistoFiller doesn`t process SPE hits yet, 42 runs remaining): http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/calibration/op_runlist_120711.txt [run, date, events, line, beacon_pos, face, TRIG0_TH, PMTVOLTAGE, INTENSITY, calibration, intensity_label] If you find: Face 7  All top LEDs.Face 8  All LEDs.999  Not defined values Group velocity of light updated from Salvatore’s analysis: V group (default in antares at 470 nm) [m/ns] = 0.217463579 [nm] 387403449462470488491531 V group [m/ns]0.2144440.2152140.21630.216927 0.2175560.2173980.219467

3. 3 Outputs, jobs and log files location (Lyon): /sps/km3net/users/yepes/ANTARES/antares-daq-2011/tools/absorption_length/histoFiller/out /sps/km3net/users/yepes/ANTARES/antares-daq-2011/tools/absorption_length/histoFiller/out/jobs /sps/km3net/users/yepes/ANTARES/antares-daq-2011/tools/absorption_length/histoFiller/out/log If inside jobs you find *bis.pl, is due GRID had problems (vmem) and it was ran in local. 4.Define target lines (OMline) to study as a function of the proximity and reduced “dead channels” amount: if (${emitter_line}==1) {$OMline = 3;} if (${emitter_line}==2) {$OMline = 4;} if (${emitter_line}==4) {$OMline = 2;} if (${emitter_line}==6) {$OMline = 4;} # Va mejor con esta linea que con la 4 if (${emitter_line}==8) {$OMline = 7;} # Va mejor con esta linea que con la 8 if (${emitter_line}==12) {$OMline = 10;}

4. 4 5.Define fit range limits  PE level condition (hits/flashes < 0.10) which gives the “best” fits if (${intensity}==3&&${emitter_line}!=6&&${emitter_line}!=12&&${ob_pos}!=0&&${ob_pos}!=9) { $inffit = 165; $supfit = 250; $inffitdt = 165; $supfitdt = 250;} if (${ob_pos}==9) {$inffit = 150; $supfit = 190;} if (${intensity}==2) {$inffit = 135; $supfit = 235;} if (${intensity}==1) {$inffit = 125; $supfit = 190;} if (${emitter_line}==12) {$inffit = 150; $supfit = 240;} if (${emitter_line}==8&&${ob_pos}==0) {$inffit = 205; $supfit = 305;} if (${emitter_line}==6&&${face}==1) {$inffit = 150; $supfit = 215;} if (${emitter_line}==6&&${face}==2) {$inffit = 160; $supfit = 250;} if (${emitter_line}==6&&${face}==3) {$inffit = 150; $supfit = 250;} if (${emitter_line}==6&&${face}==4) {$inffit = 200; $supfit = 290;} if (${emitter_line}==6&&${face}==5) {$inffit = 200; $supfit = 290;} if (${emitter_line}==6&&${face}==6) {$inffit = 135; $supfit = 235;} Why the short ranges of fits for some wavelengths? See next page for inf fit (sup fit is checked manually from exponential fits to L  Strange things can appear when we measure at different lines)  PE level is reached more distant at different lines  Less data points to fit  worst chi2 probabilities  larger errors. More plots: http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/peLevel/ http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/fits/ http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/fits_*/

5. 5 Line 12 UV OB’s F2 High intensity Blue OB F9 Low intensityMedium intensity Laser L6f1L6f2 L6f3 L6f4L6f5L6f6

6. 6 6.Compute all 40 K sensitivities for all periods and lines. If during some period some line was not working, sensitivities will be set to zero (be aware). evalu129 /l/yepes/ANTARES/antares-daq-2011/tools/absorption_length/Dmitry/omsens_new/OMsens*.root get_sensi_fun_new.C get_sensi_fun_new.so 7.Repeat my analysis with a modified version (in agreement to my needs) of the last analysis program from Joaquin. Traditional way (be aware…some strange things will appear)

7. 7

8. 8

9. 9

10. 10

11. 11

12. 12

13. 13

14. 14

15. 15

16. 16

17. 17

18. 18

19. 19

20. 20

21. 21

22. 22

23. 23

24. 24

25. 25

26. 26

27. 27

28. 28 FIRST OBSERVATIONS: L1F2 once again is measuring less than the other ones, however L is stable in time, also in chi2 fit probabilities. L2F2 is also stable in time and in chi2 probabilities, some fits with large errors. L2F9 is not a good configuration for this new technique to measure in neighboring lines, huge errors and L distribution non-gaussian, not enough points to fit. L2F2 MI probably the best configuration to measure, the narrowest distributions, and very, very stable in time and chi2 probabilities. L2F2 LI, probably the worst configuration for our new analysis, we are not measuring anything. L4F2, probably other of the best configurations, jointly with L2 at high and medium intensity, shows a good stability in time and in chi2 probabilities. L4F9, is not a good configuration, huge errors, we are not measuring anything. L6F2f1, difficult to predict, however, we have large errors, probably due to bad fits, a half of the sample are overflows. L6F2f2, good fits, good stability in time and chi2 probabilities. L6F2f3, lots of overflows, no narrow distributions for L, we are not measuring anything. L6F2f4, good stability in time, close to the expected value at 470 nm (?), non-narrow distribution for fit errors. L6F2f5, seems to be stable in time, but fit errors distributions seems to be non-narrow and the mean seems to be suspicious. L6F2f6, the worst and unexplained measurements for x-mas beacon, without words… L8F2, apparently ok but some overflows. L8F9, extremely huge fit errors, probably not useful for this analysis, not enough points to fit. L8F2 LI, huge fit errors, difficult to trust in something. L8F0 (laser), seems to be ok, two runs with large errors. L12F2 (UV), anything to do, totally unexplainable…

29. 29 OPTICAL BEACONUSEFULNESS FOR ANALYSIS IN NEIGHBORING LINES YESTBDNO L1F2X L2F2X L2F9X L2F2 MIX L2F2 LIX L4F2X L4F9X L6F2f1X L6F2f2X L6F2f3X L6F2f4X L6F2f5X L6F2f6X L8F2X L8F9X L8F2 LIX L8F0 (laser)X L12F2 (UV)X

30. 30 PROPOSAL DUE TO THE FOUNDED CONSTRAINS (THE WORST CASES): OB in F9 not useful anymore: not enough points to fit (for any line), click next link: http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/fits_ob9/ Low intensity (LI) runs are not useful: all fits behave in a different way, click next link: http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/fits_li/ Unexplainable, it is not matter of the number of points to fit, neither number of events in the run, … L12F2 (UV) not useful anymore, “wavy shapes” of number of hits as a function of distance, just one useful run (53400): http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/fits_l12/ What about x-mas beacon?  Next page

31. 31 For L6F2f1  http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/fits_l6f1/ An exponential decay of the number of hits is not clear, there is not reproducibility. For L6F2f2  http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/fits_l6f2/ Ok! It will replace the measurements at 403 nm since L12F2 is not giving the expected. For L6F2f3  http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/fits_l6f3/ An exponential decay of the number of hits is not clear, there is not reproducibility. For L6F2f4  http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/fits_l6f4/ Most of the fits looks OK, but (?) its mean (at 462 nm) is higher than the one for 470 nm. For L6F2f5  http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/fits_l6f5/ Most of the fits are OK, which don’t show the strange “non exponential decay”. For L6F2f6  http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/fits_l6f6/ PE level seems to be reached at different distances (???), and non exponential decay of the number of hits.

32. 32 ALTERNATIVES: For L12  Compute fits in other line: it is not a good option neither… In L8: http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/alternatives/fits_l12-l8/ In L11: http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/alternatives/fits_l12-l11/ No way!!!!!!!!!!!! For L6f1  Compute fits in other line: it is not a good option neither… In L2: http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/alternatives/fits_l6f1-l2/ In L10: http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/alternatives/fits_l6f1-l10/ No way.

33. 33 For L6f3  Compute fits in other line: In L2: http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/alternatives/fits_l6f3-l2/ It seems to be better despite the not clear exponential decay in the number of hits, L seems to be so higher…TWO COMPONENTS CAN BE SEEN? In L10: http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/alternatives/fits_l6f3-l10/ Not exponential decay is clear for the number of hits…not reproducibility of the measurement. For L6f4  Compute fits in other line In L2: http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/alternatives/fits_l6f4-l2/ Stability seems to be kept, despite its mean which is more higher than the one for 470 nm. In L10: http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/alternatives/fits_l6f4-l10/ No way!

34. 34 For L6f5  Compute fits in other line: In L2: http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/alternatives/fits_l6f5-l2/ Slight higher values than the ones obtained using L4 as target line. In L10: http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/alternatives/fits_l6f5-l10/ No way! For L6f6  Compute fits in other line: In L2: http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/alternatives/fits_l6f6-l2/ No way! In L10: http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/optical_properties/noShadowing/180711/alternatives/fits_l6f6-l10/ MORE THAN ONE COMPONENT??????????

35. 35 FINAL CHECKS: L8F0 (laser) measured in L7 (default), L12 and L8 (same line): L12 discarded as target (peaks at 56 m are convergence to the fit function parameter due the light is not recorded/reached for some old runs, maybe due to polarizer value…). L4 is not shown but it is as worst as for L12 measurements. Difference between neighboring (L7) - same line (L8) is almost negligible  What about the “shadowing” effect? L neighboring < L same  OK?

36. 36 Xmas beacon L2 Vs L4 distributions as targets:  Face 1 L2 discarded as target.

37. 37  Face 2: L2 discarded as target. L neighboring < L same  OK?

38. 38  Face 3: Both lines could discarded as targets, however previous results suggest L4 as the “better” one.

39.  Face 4: L4 could it be discarded (?) as target  Are the x-mas OB faces really matter for a given target line?  One face could have the mechanical structure of the line in front  Other way of shadowing? If the above statements are true, we could think that the angular distribution of light could be an important factor as a function of the face we use  Light could not hit in the front of the OM. L neighboring < L same (462 nm)  OK? But more higher that the one at 470 nm (L~44 m)?

40. 40  Face 5: L2 could be discarded as target. Large RMS for L4 due to entry ~56 m.

41. 41  Face 6: Totally unexplainable!!!! Obviously it comes from the worst fits i have seen in my life!!!

42. 42 Line 12:

43. 43

44. 44 CONCLUSIONS: Standard Optical Beacons: 1.L2F2 HI, L2F2 MI L4F2 HI have the best optical beacon configuration for optical properties measurements in neighboring lines, overall MI configuration. They have the best stability in time and  2 probabilities. 2.Other OBs which could be useful but we have to decide: L1F2 and L8F2 both at HI (target lines L3 and L7 respectively). 3.Not useful OBs: L2F9 HI, L2F2 LI, L4F9 HI, L8F9 HI, L8F2 LI. X-mas Optical Beacon (Multi-Wavelength): 1.The wavelength at 403 nm (face 2) is going as we expect, and it will replace L12F2 measurements, since L12F2 is not useful, probably due to non-suitable target lines (L8, L10, L11)…further investigations will be done. 2.Face 4 at 463 nm, seems to be useful also, but its mean is higher than the one at 470 nm, can it be correct? Smith and Baker spectrum shows also a small “bump” between these two wavelengths. 3.Face 6 measurements are totally unexplainable, not idea what’s going on. 4.For faces 1, 3, 5, it is not totally clear if they are giving “an expected” result, the whole spectrum we have shows a not-common distribution.

45. 45 Special Optical Beacon in Line 12 (UV LEDs): 1.L12F2 OB gives its best fits in L10, unfortunately it is the worst line for measure, jointly with L8 and L11. Not useful OB L12F2 HI, further investigations to perform. Laser: 1.Seems to be OK all measurements, despite two runs which will be obviously checked. General: 1. 42 runs remaining to process due to the SPE hits limitation in HistoFiller (Ciro?). 2. Process golden runs with the x-talk option when all runs are going to have such implementation (Joaquín?, Ciro?). 3.Two wavelengths (403 nm x-mas beacon, 531 nm laser beacon) with stable measurements, give almost the same mean for L if they consider the same line or its best target line, what can we say about the “shadowing” effect here? 4. Which OBs we have to select to create the spectrum at 470 nm? 5. Re-classification for golden runs? Which criteria? 6. New runs policy: besides all top LEDs and full beacon measurements for L2 and L4 suggested by Juande, could be fine to choose the medium intensity configuration (the best one as it was showed before)? What else?