Status of GlueX Particle Identification Ryan Mitchell September 10, 2004.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CBM Calorimeter System CBM collaboration meeting, October 2008 I.Korolko(ITEP, Moscow)
Advertisements

Particle identification in ECAL Alexander Artamonov, Yuri Kharlov IHEP, Protvino CBM collaboration meeting
HARP Anselmo Cervera Villanueva University of Geneva (Switzerland) K2K Neutrino CH Meeting Neuchâtel, June 21-22, 2004.
SBS Hadron and Electron Calorimeters Mark Jones. SBS Hadron and Electron Calorimeters Mark Jones Overview of GEn, GMn setup Overview of GEp setup The.
SBS Hadron and Electron Calorimeters Mark Jones 1 TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: AAA A.
PHYSTAT2007, CERN Geneva, June 2007 ALICE Statistical Wish-List I. Belikov, on behalf of the ALICE collaboration.
A Very High Momentum Particle Identification Detector for the ALICE experiment at the LHC. Dorado del mar Puerto Rico, April 8, 2012 Edmundo García Chicago.
BEACH04 Chicago, June 28-July A.Tonazzo - HARP pion yields for neutrino beams/1 Hadron Production Cross-Sections and Secondary Particle Yields from.
30 March Global Mice Particle Identification Steve Kahn 30 March 2004 Mice Collaboration Meeting.
Review of PID simulation & reconstruction in G4MICE Yordan Karadzhov Sofia university “St. Kliment Ohridski” Content : 1 TOF 2 Cerenkov.
Algorithms and Methods for Particle Identification with ALICE TOF Detector at Very High Particle Multiplicity TOF simulation group B.Zagreev ACAT2002,
Jun 27, 2005S. Kahn -- Ckov1 Simulation 1 Ckov1 Simulation and Performance Steve Kahn June 27, 2005 MICE Collaboration PID Meeting.
Study of two pion channel from photoproduction on the deuteron Lewis Graham Proposal Phys 745 Class May 6, 2009.
TOF (and Global) PID F. Pierella for the TOF-Offline Group INFN & Bologna University PPR Meeting, January 2003.
Zhihong Ye Hampton University Feb. 16 th 2010, APS Meeting, Washington DC Data Analysis Strategy to Obtain High Precision Missing Mass Spectra For E
The Design of a Detector for the Electron Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider Anders Ingo Kirleis 1, William Foreman 1, Elke-Caroline Aschenauer 2, and Matthew.
Experiment HUGS 2011 – Jefferson Laboratory Hussein Al Ghoul Department Of Physics Florida State University ᵠ.
20 October, 2004GlueX Detector Review 1 The GlueX Detector Curtis A. Meyer This talk Next talk.
The HERMES Dual-Radiator Ring Imaging Cerenkov Detector N.Akopov et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A479 (2002) 511 Shibata Lab 11R50047 Jennifer Newsham YSEP.
Position Sensitive SiPMs for Ring Imaging Cherenkov Counters C.Woody BNL January 17, 2012.
A Reconstruction Algorithm for a RICH detector for CLAS12 Ahmed El Alaoui RICH Workchop, Jefferson Lab, newport News, VA November th 2011.
Medium heavy Λ hyper nuclear spectroscopic experiment by the (e,e’K + ) reaction Graduate school of science, Tohoku University Toshiyuki Gogami for HES-HKS.
HARP for MiniBooNE Linda R. Coney Columbia University DPF 2004.
GlueX Particle Identification Ryan Mitchell Indiana University Detector Review, October 2004.
The GlueX Detector 5/29/091CIPANP The GlueX Detector -- David Lawrence (JLab) David Lawrence (JLab) Electron beam accelerator continuous-wave (1497MHz,
POLENKEVICH IRINA (JINR, DUBNA) ON BEHALF OF THE NA62 COLLABORATION XXI INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS AND QUANTUM FIELD THEORY (QFTHEP'2013)
DE/dx measurement with Phobos Si-pad detectors - very first impressions (H.P Oct )
BNL/ Tatsuya CHUJO CNS workshop, Tokyo Univ. Identified Charged Single Particle Spectra at RHIC-PHENIX Tatsuya Chujo (BNL) for the PHENIX.
Fast Simulation of TOF Response A.Galoyan, LPP, JINR, Dubna Used model.
Charmonium feasibility study F. Guber, E. Karpechev, A.Kurepin, A. Maevskaia Institute for Nuclear Research RAS, Moscow CBM collaboration meeting 11 February.
Track extrapolation to TOF with Kalman filter F. Pierella for the TOF-Offline Group INFN & Bologna University PPR Meeting, January 2003.
Electron and identified hadron v 2 to look for hadronic or partonic origin of elliptic flow Shingo Sakai for the PHENIX Collaboration Univ. of Tsukuba.
Anders Kirleis Stony Brook University The Design Of A Detector For The Electron Ion Collider.
1 Mariyan Bogomilov CERN,(Switzerland) University of Sofia and INRNE, (Bulgaria) Kiten, Bulgaria THE HARP EXPERIMENT THE HARP EXPERIMENT.
Latifa Elouadrhiri Jefferson Lab Hall B 12 GeV Upgrade Drift Chamber Review Jefferson Lab March 6- 8, 2007 CLAS12 Drift Chambers Simulation and Event Reconstruction.
Simulations Report E. García, UIC. Run 1 Geometry Radiator (water) 1cm x 2cm x 2cm with optical properties Sensitive Volume (hit collector) acrylic (with.
PANDA GSI 13. December 2006 PID TAG Georg Schepers PANDA Technical Assessment Group PID Status Report G. Schepers for the PID TAG GSI PID TAG.
Time of Flight Detectors at RHIC Time of Flight Measurements at RHIC  TOF detector as a PID devices  PHENIX-TOF and BRAHMS-TOF PHENIX Time-of-Flight.
RPC upgrade for the HADES Tracking: MDC e -,e + identification with RICH- TOF/PreShower  0.4 GeV/c TOF is not sufficient- Pre-Shower p,  identification.
M. Muniruzzaman University of California Riverside For PHENIX Collaboration Reconstruction of  Mesons in K + K - Channel for Au-Au Collisions at  s NN.
1 SHMS Particle Identification Hall C User’s Winter Workshop, January 30, Garth Huber.
Particle Identification at BESIII Kanglin He April 23, 2007, Amsterdam.
PID simulations Rikard Sandström University of Geneva MICE collaboration meeting RAL.
A search for strange tribaryonic states in the reaction Heejoong Yim Seoul National University For KEK-PS E549 collaboration.
Optics, Tracking, and TOF Status/Update/Roadmap Xin Qian KRL Caltech.
HARP measurements of pion yield for neutrino experiments Issei Kato (Kyoto University) for the HARP collaboration Contents: 1.HARP experiment Physics motivations.
I.BelikovCHEP 2004, Interlaken, 30 Sep Bayesian Approach for Combined Particle Identification in ALICE Experiment at LHC. I.Belikov, P.Hristov, M.Ivanov,
HLAB meeting paper 2011/1/18 T.Gogami CLAS ( CEBAF Large Acceptance Spectrometer ) Clam shell is open.
The GlueX Detector in Hall-D at Jefferson Lab February 16, 2010 David Lawrence, Jefferson Lab (for Curtis A. Meyer, Carnegie Mellon University) July 7,
1 Fast Pixel Simulation Howard Wieman, Xiangming Sun Lawrence Berkeley Lab.
Feasibility study of Heavy Flavor tagging with charged kaons in Au-Au Collisions at √s=200 GeV triggered by High Transverse Momentum Electrons. E.Kistenev,
Radia Sia Syracuse Univ. 1 RICH 2004 Outline:  The CLEO-III RICH Detector  Physics Requirements  CLEO-III RICH at work… Performance of the CLEO-III.
Christian Lippmann (ALICE TRD), DPG-Tagung Köln Position Resolution, Electron Identification and Transition Radiation Spectra with Prototypes.
Georgie Mbianda 1 for the Baryon (E01-002) Collaboration 1 University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg Exclusive Electroproduction of π + and η mesons.
SAS TRD Possible TRD configurations for PID up to the TeVs energies fig.s for this talk taken by: B.Dolgoshein Transition radiation detectors -NIM A326(1993)
Il Ring Imaging CHerenkov (RICH) detector a Jefferson Lab – Hall A.
RICH studies for CLAS12 L. Pappalardo1 Contalbrigo Marco Luciano Pappalardo INFN Ferrara CLAS12 RICH Meeting – JLab 21/6/2011.
QM2002 (July / / Nantes / France)Susumu SATO (JSPS) for the PHENIX collaboration page 1 Susumu SATO Japan Society for the Promotion of Science,
CKOV1 design status 1. Generation of muon and pion beam files 2. PID performances with water radiator 3. Does it help with fluorocarbon FC72 ? 4. Conclusion.
Aerogel Čerenkov Requirements for the SHMS ( e,e’K + ) Program Hall C User’s Workshop, August 7, Garth Huber.
Development of Forward Aerogel Cherenkov Detector for the H-dibaryon search experiment (E42) at J-PARC Japan-Korea PHENIX Collaboration Meeting Minho Kim.
Yet another approach to the ToF-based PID at PANDA
Measurement of track length and time-of-flight hypothesis
E.A.Kravchenko Budker INP, Novosibirsk, Russia
RICH simulation for CLAS12
Study of dE/dx Performance in TPC at CEPC
STAR Detector Event selection and triggers Corrections to data
for the PHENIX collaboration
LHCb Particle Identification and Performance
NKS2 Meeting with Bydzovsky NKS2 Experiment / Analysis Status
Presentation transcript:

Status of GlueX Particle Identification Ryan Mitchell September 10, 2004

Outline Overview of Particle ID Components. Physics Examples. Look at each subdetector: –Central Drift Chamber (CDC) –Barrel Calorimeter (BCAL) –Cerenkov (CKOV) –Forward Time of Flight (TOF) Likelihoods for Particle Hypotheses. Angular Efficiencies.

Particle ID with the GlueX Detector: 1.dE/dx from the CDC 2.Time from the BCAL 3.Photo-electrons from Cerenkov 4. Time from the TOF

Starting Momentum Spectra Black = proton, Blue = Kaons, Red = Pions Starting momenta for four reactions: 1.  p   +  - p 2.  p  K + K - p 3.  p  K * K * p  K +  - K -  + p 4.  p  K 1 K - p  K +  K - p  K +  +  - K - p

PID Cases (  p  K * K * p) Central Forward Black = proton, Blue = Kaons, Red = Pions 0. No PID Info 1.CDC 2.CDC, BCAL 3.CKOV 4.CDC, CKOV 5.CDC,BCAL,CKOV 6.CKOV,TOF 7.CDC,CKOV,TOF 8.CDC,BCAL,CKOV,TOF

An Example From GEANT (  p  K*K*p)

dE/dx from the CDC Calculated with Argon Gas Good K/p separation below ~2 GeV/c. Black = Proton Blue = Kaon Red = Pion Green = Electron

Measured dE/dx in the CDC Measurements for  p  K * K*p. Black = proton, Blue = Kaons, Red = Pions A dE/dx resolution of 10% is assumed. (Case 2 tracks) Calculating Likelihoods: Given a track with momentum p hitting the CDC, CDC L i = 1/  i (2  ) 1/2 exp(-(x-x i ) 2 / 2  i ) i = particle hypothesis x i = predicted measurement  i = predicted error (10%) x = actual measurement

Time of Flight from BCAL Black = Proton Blue = Kaon Red = Pion Green = Electron With 200 ps resolution, resolve: --  /K up to ~1 GeV/c -- K/p up to ~2 GeV/c Flight distance of 1.0 meters.

Measured Time from BCAL Measurements for  p  K * K*p. Black = proton, Blue = Kaons, Red = Pions Calculating Likelihoods: Given a track with momentum p and pathlength L hitting the BCAL, BCAL L i = 1/  i (2  ) 1/2 exp(-(t-t i ) 2 / 2  i ) i = particle hypothesis t i = predicted measurement  i = predicted error (200ps time resolution, 1% momentum res., 1% length res.) t = actual measurement Time resolution of 200ps (Case 2 tracks)

CKOV Photo-Electrons Black = Proton Blue = Kaon Red = Pion Green = Electron The CDR design: Index of Refraction = Length = 1.0 meters Efficiency = 90 cm -1.

Measured CKOV N PE Measurements for  p  K * K*p. Black = proton, Blue = Kaons, Red = Pions Calculating Likelihoods: (Case 7 tracks) Given a particle of momentum p, calculate the expected number of photoelectrons under different particle hypotheses:  = N 0 sin 2  c. If cerenkov “fires”: CKOV L i = (1-e -  ) + a – a(1-e -  ) If cerenkov is quiet: CKOV L i = e -  (1-a) N 0 = cerenkov efficiency = length of cerenkov  = cone of radiation angle a = accidental rate

Time from the TOF Wall Black = Proton Blue = Kaon Red = Pion Green = Electron With 100 ps resolution, resolve: --  /K up to ~2.5 GeV/c -- K/p up to ~4.0 GeV/c

Measured TOF from the TOF Wall Measurements for  p  K * K*p. Black = proton, Blue = Kaons, Red = Pions Calculating Likelihoods: Given a track with momentum p and pathlength L hitting the TOF, TOF L i = 1/  i (2  ) 1/2 exp(-(t-t i ) 2 / 2  i ) i = particle hypothesis t i = predicted measurement  i = predicted error (100ps time resolution, 1% momentum resolution, 1% length resolution) t = actual measurement Time resolution of 100ps (Case 7 tracks)

Likelihoods Combine the likelihoods from all the detectors into a single likelihood, e.g., L K = L K CDC L K BCAL L K CKOV L K TOF Make decisions based on likelihood ratios. For now, use:  /K separation = 2ln(L  /L K ) K/  separation = 2ln(L K /L  ) p/K separation = 2ln(L p /L K )

 /K Separation Blue = Kaons, Red = Pions  /K separation = 2ln(L  /L K ) for  p  K * K * p Look at the ratio for each detector individually. (case 2) (case 7)

 /K Separation Blue = Kaons, Red = Pions Combine likelihoods into an overall likelihood. Now look at the  /K separation.

K/p Separation Black = proton, Blue = Kaons K/p separation = 2ln(L K /L p ) for  p  K * K * p Look at the ratio for each detector individually. (case 2) (case 7)

K/p Separation Black = proton, Blue = Kaons Combine likelihoods into an overall likelihood. Now look at the K/p separation.

Particle ID Cuts To get an idea of efficiencies, make the following simplifications… A Pion is considered identified if: 2ln(L  /L K ) > 2.0 A Kaon is considered identified if: 2ln(L K /L  ) > 2.0 A Proton is considered identified if: 2ln(L p /L K ) > 2.0

Momentum Efficiencies For  p  K * K * p, there is definite structure in momentum efficiencies… Inefficiencies due to… -- high momentum central tracks. -- forward tracks from 2 to 3 GeV/c Black = proton, Blue = Kaons, Red = Pions

Angular Efficiencies for K * K * Efficiencies in Gottfried-Jackson angles. Starting After PID Preference for forward- backward decays.

Angular Efficiencies for K + K -

Angular Efficiencies for K 1 K

Conclusions There are no overwhelming problems in GlueX particle ID. In the present setup, inefficiencies occur due to: –High momentum central tracks –Forward tracks between 2 and 3 GeV/c These inefficiencies lead to sculpted momentum spectra, but only slight variations in angular efficiencies.