cbm calorimeter system cbm collaboration meeting, october 2008 i.korolko(itep, moscow)

of 35 /35
CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko (ITEP, Moscow)

Upload: kristofer-hoose

Post on 14-Dec-2015

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

CBM Calorimeter System

CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008

I.Korolko (ITEP, Moscow)

Page 2: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Outline

■ Particle identification in ECAL (longitudinal segmentation)

Y.Kharlov, A.Artamonov

■ Reconstruction in the CBM ECAL

M.Prokudin

■ Optimization of the CBM ECAL

I.Korolko

Page 3: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

PID in CBM

• In CBM, the particle identification (PID) is realized in TOF, TRD, RICH and ECAL• The main object of ECAL PID is to discriminate photons and e+- from other

particles• The ECAL PID is based mainly on an investigation of transverse shower shape

analysis• A subject of this study is to perform the ECAL PID by using just longitudinal

shower shape analysis• The most simple case has been studied when ECAL module consists of 2

longitudinal segments• This case is very close to the current design of ECAL, since it consists of preshower

and ECAL modules• Method used is to analyse 2D plot, namely an energy deposition in the 1st segment

of ECAL module versus an energy deposition in the whole ECAL module

Page 4: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

• Framework – cbmroot as a new detector module segcal• 1 ECAL module with 160 layers (Pb 0.7 mm + Sci 1.0 mm)• 20 longitudinal segments, each one consists of 8 layers• Effective radiation length of the ECAL module: 1.335 cm• Total radiation length of the ECAL module: 20.4 X0• A single primary particle (photon, muon, pion, kaon, proton,

neutron, antineutron and Lambda(1115)) with energies 1, 2, 3, ..., 23, 24, 25 GeV

Simulation model

Page 5: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Various combinations of segment thickness:

• 1 X0 (in 1st segment) + 19 X0 (in 2nd segment)

• 2 X0 (in 1st segment) + 18 X0 (in 2nd segment)

• 3 X0 (in 1st segment) + 17 X0 (in 2nd segment)

• 4 X0 (in 1st segment) + 16 X0 (in 2nd segment)

• 5 X0 (in 1st segment) + 15 X0 (in 2nd segment)

• 6 X0 (in 1st segment) + 14 X0 (in 2nd segment)

• 7 X0 (in 1st segment) + 13 X0 (in 2nd segment)

• 8 X0 (in 1st segment) + 12 X0 (in 2nd segment)

• 9 X0 (in 1st segment) + 11 X0 (in 2nd segment)

• 10 X0 (in 1st segment) + 10 X0 (in 2nd segment)

• 11 X0 (in 1st segment) + 9 X0 (in 2nd segment)

• 12 X0 (in 1st segment) + 8 X0 (in 2nd segment)

• 13 X0 (in 1st segment) + 7 X0 (in 2nd segment)

• 14 X0 (in 1st segment) + 6 X0 (in 2nd segment)

• 15 X0 (in 1st segment) + 5 X0 (in 2nd segment)

• 16 X0 (in 1st segment) + 4 X0 (in 2nd segment)

• 17 X0 (in 1st segment) + 3 X0 (in 2nd segment)

• 18 X0 (in 1st segment) + 2 X0 (in 2nd segment)

• 19 X0 (in 1st segment) + 1 X0 (in 2nd segment)

Particle identification is based on relation between the total energy and the energy in the first segment:

E1 vs Etot

Page 6: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

The energy deposition in the whole module caused by 2 GeV photon and 1,2,3,4 GeV/c neutron

Neutron contamination to photon spectrum: 1D case

Page 7: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

The energy deposition in the 1st segment versus the full energy deposition. Black points correspond to 2 GeV photons, red points correspond to 1 GeV/c neutrons. Segmentation: 10 X0 (1st segment) + 10 X0 (2nd segment)

Neutron contamination to photon spectrum 2D case

Page 8: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

The energy deposition in the 1st segment versus the energy deposition in the whole module. The same plot but with one additional population originated from 2 GeV/c neutrons (blue points)

Neutron contamination to photon spectrum 2D case

Page 9: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

The energy deposition in the 1st segment versus the energy deposition in the whole module. The same plot but with one additional population originated from 3 GeV/c neutrons (green points)

Neutron contamination to photon spectrum 2D case

Page 10: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

The energy deposition in the 1st segment versus the energy deposition in the whole module. The same plot but with one additional population originated from 4 GeV/c neutrons (magenta points)

Neutron contamination to photon spectrum 2D case

Page 11: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Probabilities for neutron to fake 2 GeV photon. This plot corresponds to the following segment structure: 10X0+10X0

Page 12: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Probabilities for neutron to fake 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, ..., 23, 24 and 25 GeV photons. Segment structure: 10X0+10X0

Page 13: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Probabilities for neutron to fake 2 GeV photon in module with 2 segments 10X0+10X0 (red curve) and the whole module (black curve)

Page 14: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Probabilities for neutron to fake 10 GeV photon in module with 2 segments 10X0+10X0 (red curve) and the whole module (black curve)

Page 15: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Definition of convolution integral

Page 16: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Probabilities for neutron with any momentum to fake photon with a given energy in module with 2 segments 10X0+10X0 (red curve) and the whole module (black curve)

Integral contamination of photon spectrum by neutrons

Page 17: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Ratio of probabilities for neutron with any momentum to fake photon with a given energy

1-segmented modules vs 2-segmented one

Page 18: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Probabilities and their ratios for neutron with any momentum to fake photon with a given energy for various segment thickness

Page 19: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Probabilities and their ratios for neutron with any momentum to fake photon with a given energy for various segment thickness

Page 20: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

• The 1st practical realization of the well known procedure for performing the ECAL PID in the 1D case (whole ECAL module) and the 2D case (ECAL module with 2 segments) were done

• The probabilities for hadrons and muons of various momenta P to fake a photon of various energies E were obtained. For example, in the segment structure 14X0+6X0, 5 GeV photon can be faked by 5.3e-03 of 6 GeV/c neutrons, by 2.9e-02 of 6 GeV/c K0L, by 4.8e-02 of 6 GeV/c antineutrons, by 5.1e-03 of 6 GeV/c Lambda(1115), by 4.7e-02 of 6 GeV/c pi-, by 3.4e-02 of 6 GeV/c pi+, by 5.4e-03 of 6 GeV/c protons, by 6.0e-05 of 7 GeV/c muons

• The probabilities for hadrons of ANY momenta P (integrated over momenta of the hadrons) to fake a photon of various energies E were obtained. For example, in the segment structure 14X0+6X0, 5 GeV photon can be faked by

• 9.110-4 of neutrons,

• 1.7 10-4 of K0L,

• 3.5 10-6 of antineutrons,

• 1.5 10-4 of Lambda(1115),

• 1.210-3 of -,

• 9.8 10-4 of +,

• 8.810-4 of protons

• PID has been studied for 19 combinations of segment thickness. The most optimum segment combinations are 14X0+6X0 and 15X0+5X0.

Conclusion

Page 21: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Outline

• Calorimeter software development– photon reconstruction

• cluster finder• simple reconstruction

– UrQMD events

– matching– Calorimeter drawing tools

• Cluster fitting– requirements

• Conclusions• Next steps

Page 22: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Photon reconstruction. Requirements

• Robust reconstruction of single photons

• Two close photons case:– robust reconstruction of parameters in case two

separate maximums– separation one/two photons in case of one maximum

• Fast! (should be)

Page 23: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Calorimeter drawing tools• Photons

– MC

– Reconstructed• *

• (Anti) neutrons

• Charged tracks– Reconstructed

• *

– MC

• Secondary– Photons

– Electrons

Page 24: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Shower width

• Energy deposition in cluster cells are not independent– storing of RMS in shower library

useless• Analytical formula

– with correlation• ALICE

– σ2=c0(Emeas+c1)• no correlations!

• PHENIX– σ2=c0(Emeas(1-Emeas/Ecluster)(1+k

sin4θEcluster)+c1)• correlations are in

– Angle dependence• shower library

h4

h5

Page 25: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

χ2 distributions. Single photons

95%

1 G

eV

95%

4 G

eV

σ2=c0(Emeas(1-Emeas/Ecluster)+c1)

c1=0.0005

95%

1 G

eV

95%

4 G

eV

σ2=c0(Emeas+c1)

Shape of χ2 for each energy looks Ok, but cut with 95% efficiency has different value!

Need a different σ2 formula!

Page 26: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Rejection power. Inner region

σ2=c0(Emeas(1-Emeas/Ecluster)+c1)σ2=c0(Emeas+c1)

Page 27: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Rejection power. Outer region

σ2=c0(Emeas(1-Emeas/Ecluster)+c1)σ2=c0(Emeas+c1)

Reconstruction in outer region is most sensible to σ2 formula!

Page 28: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Goals of the optimization

The main goal of the optimization is to fit in budget (which is not defined yet)

■ keeping possibility to reconstruct γ, π0, η, …

■ keeping wide Θ acceptance

■ keeping electron identification

■ remove low populated cells (outer region)

■ remove hot cells (central region)

Reduce calorimeter acceptance (24K channels)

Page 29: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Hot cells

The amount of material between target and calorimeter is (most probably) underestimated

Page 30: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Strategy of optimization

Study efficiency of π0 and η reconstruction normalized with number of ECAL channels

What is the optimal shape ?

What is the optimal acceptance ?

Do we need two arms ?

Do we need central region ?

Page 31: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Calorimeter shape

Two rectangular arms are better

Page 32: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Do we need the central region ?

Central region is rather useful (even taking into account high occupancy)

Page 33: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Efficiency vs Θ

Calculated for two arm calorimeter with ~14000 channels

Page 34: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

Efficiency vs Pt

Calculated for two arm calorimeter with ~14000 channels

Page 35: CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)

New calorimeter

Main features

~14K channels

Efficient γ, π0, η reconstruction Electron identification Movable design (no central region)