1. Preliminary analysis of p-Pb data update n. 6 Lorenzo Bonechi LHCf Catania meeting – 19 December 2013

2. 2

3. Data taking – preliminary summary table LHCf - Summary table for data taking in 2013 Beam crossing angle (urad) Detector vertical position (mm, 0=center) Thresholds (mV)PMT HV (V) BPTX only (min bias) Events ATLAS filters for LHCf trigger 2901700-3+5+10+15+35+40-11-13-18-24-36Normal600 p-Pb (p-remnant) 4 TeV/n Pilot run x x x x 5.4  10 5 NoAlg Nominal run x x x x 2.4  10 6 NoAlg x x x x 1.3  10 8 NoAlg + mbSpTrk x x x x 2.4  10 6 NoAlg x x x x 2.4  10 6 NoAlg x x xx 2.4  10 6 NoAlg x x x x 9.4  10 6 NoAlg + mbSpTrk x x x x 9.2  10 6 NoAlg + mbSpTrk x x x x 8.7  10 6 NoAlg + mbSpTrk x x x x 6.9  10 6 NoAlg + mbSpTrk x x x x 5.9  10 6 NoAlg + mbSpTrk x x x x x 2.2  10 7 NoAlg Pb-p (Pb-remnant) 4 TeV/n Nominal run x x x x 1.4  10 6 NoAlg + mbSpTrk x x x x 4.8  10 5 NoAlg + mbSpTrk x x xx 6.3  10 5 NoAlg + mbSpTrk x x xx 3.2  10 6 NoAlg + mbSpTrk p-p 1.38+1.38 TeVNominal run xx x x 9.7  10 6 NoAlg + mbSpTrk Atlas filters: – NoAlg = the LHCf trigger is only prescaled down – mbSpTrk = the LHCf trigger is prescaled and acquired only in case of tracks in Atlas 3

4. Main parts of the analysis Mitsuka: neutral pions – 1 st presentation in the afternoon Menjo: Ultra Peripheral Collisions (UPC) – 2 nd presentation in the afternoon Lorenzo: gamma rays + UPC – now??? (few updates with respect to september…) 4

5. Description of this work Reduction of raw data performed by Menjo on a first set of data files for p-remnant side – Files from 27400 to 27440, taken on 02 February 2013 between 05:45 and 06:15; 1.2 million triggers – Root files with reconstruction of physical data for these data set have been copied to the INFN farm in Firenze Rough comparison with models – DPMJET-III (10 7 ev) and EPOS1.99LHC (10 7 ev) have been used – Models are analyzed at the level of generator (no detector and pipes) – After Christmas time also QGSJET-II model should be available No LHCf/Atlas combined analysis yet – Discussion was started between May and June with Aaron Angerami and Brian Cole of the Atlas Heavy Ion Group – I have given them a table with some reconstructed variable from LHCf data; no answer since June (my last email to Aaron and Brian on 23 July) 5

6. Impact point distribution and beam center 6

7. 7 View from IP1 REAL DATA

8. 8 View from IP1 REAL DATA

9. Hadron profiles in the small tower REAL DATA 9

10. 10 A 2D gaussian fit confirm the position of the center of the beam

11. Comparison of the impact point distribution 11 Photon - yPhoton - x Neutron - xNeutron - y

12. Particle spectra -Real beam position is now included in the simulations For simplicity I moved the detector wrt the beam center -2 mm margin from border is now considered For simplicity I moved the detector wrt the beam center -Energy scale is corrected on the basis of the  0 peak position in the  invariant mass distribution -Comparisons of photon spectra from data and DPMJET 3.05 and EPOS1.99LHC models are shown for both towers Now added some study in pseudo-rapidity regions -Some results for neutrons -Study of the dependence of the neutron production cross section by the scattering angle -Reconstruction of energy not yet implemented -Applied the cut on energy (E > 100 GeV) -Several corrections implemented to the simulation code -Preliminary normalization of spectra applied 12

13. Debug of simulation codes Long revision of my code Several bugs have been corrected – Wrong beam crossing angle read in the EPOS model – Wrong calculation of theta and phi angles – Wrong normalization of the p t distributions – Wrong normalization of the energy spectra – Slightly different selection criteria for data and simulations for pion events – Wrong evaluation of the dead time – … Now the results should be more reliable… – Interpretation of disagreement between data and simulations  not due to some mistake (I hope), but to UPC (see Menjo’s presentation) 13

14. 14 t ACQ (1 ev) = (t i+1 -t i ) min = 1.271 ms ? These peaks are placed at multiple values with respect to the first peak. How can we interpret them? ? Normalization: first estimation of dead time 98% of the events! Interpretation: some event is discarded during data reduction (pedestal and CRC error), but I evaluate the time difference between two good events (if one or two discarded events were in between, the dt is almost double or triple and so on).

15. 15 ? 2.5 s – 3 s file change

16. Normalization 16 4.2  b -1

17. 17

18. 18

19. 19

20. 20

21. Dependency of spectrum from  I have identified 5 possible regions in  (reasonable?) 21

22. Dependency of spectrum from  22 1 4 2 3 5

23. 23

24. 24

25. 25 large small

26. Neutral pions 26 See Mitsuka presentation

27. 5667 events between 120 MeV and 150 MeV 529 background events (9.3%) 27

28. 28 Comparison with the models With the new normalization we are not in agreement with the simulations. Have I forgot some factor??? Energy scale is corrected to get the  0 peak at w=135MeV

29. 29 Approximately 3.2 Hz trigger rate for neutral pions

30. 30

31. 31

32. 32 TO BE UPDATED

33. Neutrons 33

34. Neutron production cross section (normalized by the area) as function of the scattering angle 34 By Menjo

35. 35 Neutron production cross section (normalized by the area) as function of the scattering angle Data: p-Pb run (2013)

36. 36 Data: p-Pb run (2013)

37. To do First priority: UPC (we will submit a letter) – Define common criteria for theoretical analysis and data analysis – Reprocess raw data with the updated software with calibrations and optimized cuts for the p-Pb case (Mitsuka) – Data set must be defined (same one that Mitsuka is using for pi0?) – Graph of neutron flux versus theta using the whole LHCf acceptance – Reconstruction of neutron energy distribution (measured energy, not unfolded) – Plot of pi0 pt spectrum in one rapidity bin for the letter (Mitsuka) Then… – I am writing the contribution for the Crete conference (ICNFP 2013) – Improve the analysis for gamma rays and neutrons One point: for gamma rays  pt vs eta 37