min-dhcal: measurements with pions benjamin freund and josé repond argonne national laboratory...
DESCRIPTION
3 Data collected Beam line Fermilab FTBF secondary beam (was supposed to be the tertiary beam) Momenta 1 – 10 GeV/cTRANSCRIPT
Min-DHCAL: Measurements with Pions
Benjamin Freund and José RepondArgonne National Laboratory
CALICE Collaboration MeetingMax-Planck-Institute, Munich
September 9 – 11, 2015
2
The Min-DHCAL
Layer structure
No absorber interleaved Each layer (2mm Cu + glass + readout board + 2 mm Fe)
→ 0.4 X0 or 0.04 λI
Stack
50 layers, one every 2.54 cm Corresponds to
→ 20 X0 or 2 λI
Measurements
Fermilab test beam in November 2011
3
Data collected
Beam line
Fermilab FTBF secondary beam (was supposed to be the tertiary beam)
Momenta
1 – 10 GeV/c
4
Simulation
GEANT4
Version 10.0.p02 4 different physics lists
RPC_sim_5
Emulates RPC Charge spread with 2 Gaussians Tuned with muons and positrons
5
Equalization of the RPC Response
Procedure
Same as for muons and positrons Uses through going muon tracks Equalization on run-by-run basis
μ+
e+
6
Hit and Event SelectionHits eliminated
Hits in area of 2 x 5 cm2 around ground of each chamber (<<1% loss) Hits with same geometrical address, but different time stamps (<<1%) Hits outside the standard 200 ns window (1 – 2% loss) Simulated hits corresponding to dead ASICs in data (~0.4%)
Event cleaning cuts
One cluster with at most 4 hits in first layer Maximum number of hits in time bins 2&3 (eliminates multi-particle events) At least 6 layers with hits (eliminates spurious triggers)
7
Particle IdentificationIdentification of an interaction layer I.L.
First layer of two consecutive layers with at least four hits
Pion selection
No Cerenkov hits Identified interaction layer I.L. > 4 (eliminates remaining positrons) I.L. < 11 (reduces longitudinal leakage)
Comments
4 < I.L. < 11 eliminates lots of statistics Cerenkov not simulated Cerenkov needed to cut positrons Muons efficiently cut
8
Systematic Errors
Data
Calibration uncertainty → 50% of difference between raw and equalized result Limited rate capability → Use of first 0.5 second of spill → 1 – 2% effect (most distributions not affected) Contribution from accidental noise hits → Negligible Contamination from muons/positrons → Negligible (no visible enhancements) Definition of the I.L. → Variation of cut on number of hits by ±5% in data
All errors assumed independent (also from energy to energy point) Dominant error from equalization
Simulation
For each variable, the average % difference between e+ data and simulation taken as error Different physics lists shown individually and not treated as error
9
Number of Hits
Comments
Data looks good No evidence of contamination from μ+, e+
Fit with Novosibirsk function (rather good) Simulation shows 2nd bump at higher hit number ← not understood
μe+
10
Mean of hit distributions
Comments
Mean obtained from Novosibirsk fit Fit to power law aEm → Response very linear (m~1) 1 GeV data point not reliable (low statistics and contamination from μ+) Good agreement between data and MC
11
Mean of hit distributions
Comment
Ratio MC/data mostly within systematic errors Some discontinuity in the simulation
12
Reconstructed Energies Erec = (Nhit/a)1/m
Comments
Data looks good Novosibirsk fit ~ OK 3,4 GeV: all simulations agree, but different from data 6,8,10 GeV: QGSP_BERT differs from other simulations. None describe the data
13
Energy Resolution
σ E/E [%
]
Beam energy [GeV]Comments
Leakage → Resolution not improving with energy (remember: depth only 2λI) Data and MC agree within systematic uncertainties
14
Radial Shower Shapes
Comments
Quite good at 3 GeV Too narrow simulated showers at 6 and 10 GeV Discrepancy increases with energy
15
Longitudinal Shower Shapes
Comments
Pretty good agreement at 3 GeV Longer simulated showers at higher energies Discrepancy increases with energy Fit to sum of 2 Gamma distributions
16
Shower Maximum
Comments
Determined from fit to sum of 2 Gamma distributions No maximum below 4 GeV Simulated showers consistently longer (Remember: longitudinal shapes of e+ well simulated)
17
Hit Density Distribution
Comments
Agreement with simulations within systematic errors at 3 GeV Discrepancies at higher energies outside errors at higher energies Note: data does not change much with increasing energy, simulation does
18
Summary
Analysis of Min-DHCAL pions well advanced
Comparison with simulation
Usually better agreement at lower energies Unusual features at higher energies
2nd bump in hit distribution Narrower simulated showers Longer simulated showers Hit distribution off beyond errors → Paper draft in preparation