1 / 33

IMPACT OF WATER OPTICAL PROPERTIES ON TRACKS RECONSTRUCTION

IMPACT OF WATER OPTICAL PROPERTIES ON TRACKS RECONSTRUCTION. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06 th -10 th , 2011. H Yepes -Ramirez IFIC (CSIC – Universitat de València). OUTLINE.

kylie-alvarado
Download Presentation

IMPACT OF WATER OPTICAL PROPERTIES ON TRACKS RECONSTRUCTION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IMPACT OF WATER OPTICAL PROPERTIES ON TRACKS RECONSTRUCTION ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th, 2011 H Yepes -Ramirez IFIC (CSIC – Universitat de València)

  2. OUTLINE Brief reminder of light propagation in sea water: ANTARES Monte Carlo model Simulation: absorption and scattering inputs, codes and data selection Selected results Conclusions and outlook ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  3. Brief reminder of light propagation in sea water Absorption length Scattering Length Scattering phase function (b) • Morel and Loisel approach • Molecular scattering (Rayleigh)  Isotropic (<cosq>=0) • h = contribution of Rayleigh scattering • Particle scattering (Mie)  Strong forward peaked (<cosq>Mie=0.924) Attenuation Length (COLIMATED BEAM) Effective Attenuation Length (ISOTROPIC SOURCE) Scattering length wavelength dependence (Kopelevich parameterization) Petzold values for particle scattering b = scattering coefficient. vs, vl = scattering centers. <Cosq> = Average cosine of the global distribution ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  4. Simulation • A set of water properties inputs reliable for study: • AIM  production of the absorption and scattering spectrum for different water models for muons and neutrinos, in agreement to the water models proposed for the data/MC CALIBOB comparison for optical beacon data (J Ruiz-Rivas, Collaboration Meeting in Paris 2010). • Ten different water models (two runs each, just for a first approach) for muons and neutrinos (20 files for muons, 20 files for neutrinos). ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  5. Simulation • Three runs with the same h value and different scattering spectrum for a given absorption length. • Three runs with different h values, but h is computed in such a way that the three runs will have the same effective scattering length at 470 nm, for a given absorption length. • Three common modelsfor comparisons (muons abs55-abs63, neutrinos abs55) with previous Monte Carlo productions. • OM Angular acceptance of June 2009 (Genova Meeting 2009). ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  6. Simulation Simulation chain: • WATER MODEL: • Photon tables production (water tables) Water tables (hbook files) + Description files (ASCII files). GEN • OM PARAMETERS: • Hit probability computation from the water tables for a given OM parameters Hit tables (hbook files) + Description files (ASCII files). HIT • Simulated events: Geometry + Kinematics • Physics events reading and OM hits production based on event geometry and hit probability tables Detector events: Signal hits (muons, not tracks from hadronic showers), physical background. KM3 • Simulations OF ATMOSPHERIC NEUTRINO INTERACTIONS. • Process (and evaluation) tracks from particles coming from the hadronic showers (also muons from KM3). GEASIM MCEW TRANSLATION OF INFO ASCII FILES INTO ROOT FORMAT. FORMAT CONVERSION TO “LOOK LIKE DATA”: electronics smearing effects (calibration, ARS response) and optical background. TE RECONSTRUCTION: Reconstruction of track direction (AAfit) and ntuples information arrangement as number of hits, zenith distribution…(AntDST). RECO ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  7. Simulation Main options and software versions in muons and neutrinos simulation: ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  8. Simulation • Methodology: runs selection, lifetime computations and weights • Data subsample: “Point source search with 2007 and 2008 data” (ANTARES-PHYS-2010-008). • Lifetime and scaling for MC: • Lifetime for neutrinos: 365 days. • Lifetime for muons: 2*8320/86400 = 0.19 days. • Weights: • Neutrinos: w3*(1.0/2*1.0e+10). • 1044 files (12 lines detector) [08/05/2008-30/12/2008]. • Lifetime data: 76.77 days. • ntuples from JP Gomez-Gonzales (thanks!!!). • MC sampling: • SoS file prepared by C Bogazzi (thanks!!!) from the data subsample (noise_basic_harold.root): time slices taken from all different acquisition conditions. • Mupage for muons. • Geasim for neutrinos.  Thanksto Annarita and Carla also for the codes used as starting point and their support !!!  Thanks also to Patrick, Maarten and Aart from NIKHEF for their appropriate help about software details !!! ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  9. Simulation Same water tables – Same SoS file “Different” water tables – Same SoS file • Remarks: • Water tables produced by Annarita to Juan Pablo and the mine ones, are equivalent (absorption length 63 m). • Reproducibility of the simulation chain and equivalence among scripts are OK (just one run considered). • Run-dependent simulation effect is seen from the SoS Monte Carlo sampling (factor ~ 1.20). • Agreement data / MC should be independent of the SoS file. Confirmation in next slides  MC Sampling with a SoS file based on 2008-2009 data subsample. Data/MC comparisons with the same data subsample. “Different” water tables – Different SoS file ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  10. Simulation Juan Pablo (Amsterdam) (labs = 55 m) My production (labs = 55 m) tcosth > 0 && beta < 1 tcosth > 0 && beta < 1 • SoS File: noise_basic_harold.root • Data ≈ MC (m), Data > MC (n). • KM3 v3r7, Aafit v0r6. • 2008 data. • OM angular acceptance 09. • SoS File: ? • Data < MC (m), Data ≈ MC (n). • KM3 v3r6, Aafit v0r6. • 2007-2008 data. • OM angular acceptance 08. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  11. Simulation My production Juan Pablo (CERN) RED: labs = 63 m RED: labs = 63 m tcosth > 0 && beta < 1 tcosth > 0 && beta < 1 • SoS File: noise_basic_harold.root • MC > data. • Aafit v0r6. • SoS File:noiseblendL12-basic.root • Data > MC. • Aafit v0r6. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  12. Simulation • What kind of information we have: • Reconstructed data (muons + neutrinos): • Absorption + scattering info: • Reconstruction quality parameter. • Number of hits used in the fit. • Total amplitude of the hits used in the fit. • Zenith distributions. • Etc…(backup). • Scattering info  Time residuals. • No reconstructed data has not been analyzed yet. • A quick look over some distributions       ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  13. Results Reconstruction quality parameter (L): tcosth > 0 && beta < 1 • Some extremes models could be discarded (i.e, blue line). • Muons region seems to be specially in agreement for the cases at the same effective scattering length (lambda > -7). • Neutrinos region for lambda > -4.5 have a nice agreement. MC Underestimation lambda < -4.5 . ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  14. Results tcosth > 0 && beta < 1 • Some extremes models could be discarded (i.e, grey line). • Muons region seems to be in agreement most cases. • Neutrinos region agreement at absorption 55 m is not enough clear as is seen for the models at 63 m. And peaks ..? ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  15. Results Number of hits used in the fit (Nhit): • Some extremes models could be discarded (i.e, blue line). • Some distributions scales to the peak and others to the tail… tcosth < 1 && nhit > 5 && lambda > -5.4 ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  16. Results • Some extremes models could be discarded (i.e, blue line). • Scale to the peak is not seen as in the previous case, but a nice agreement seems to be for the tails of the green and light blue model. tcosth < 1 && nhit > 5 && lambda > -5.4 ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  17. Results Total amplitude of the hits used in the fit (Ahit): • Some extremes models could be discarded (i.e, blue line). • Some distributions scales to the peak (blue and magenta) and others to the tail (green and sky blue). tcosth < 1 && nhit > 5 && lambda > -5.4 ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  18. Results • Some extremes models could be discarded (i.e, blue line). • Agreement to the tails for green and sky blue models, seems to be for light yellow also. tcosth < 1 && nhit > 5 && lambda > -5.4 ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  19. Results Zenith angle of the fitted track (cosq): • Some extremes models could be discarded (i.e, blue line). Peaks ??? • Muons region agreement could be take place for distributions at same effective scattering length. • Lack of neutrino events for most cases STATISTICS DEPENDENT (few runs to compare)  SEE NEXT SLIDE. lambda > -5.4 && beta < 1 ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  20. Results Statistics effect on zenith distributions: labs = 55 m @ 470 nm (from official productions) ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  21. Results • Some extremes models could be discarded (i.e, grey line). Peaks ??? • Muons region agreement could be take place for distributions at same effective scattering length. • Lack of neutrino events again !!! lambda > -5.4 && beta < 1 ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  22. Results Time residuals (thit - texp): ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  23. Results ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  24. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK • How much the correct model could matters? • What model could we trust on it? • P • L • A tentative “to do list”: • Number of hits in the trigger. • Total number of hits in the event. • Arrival time of the hit on the PMT, before and after trigger. • Detector performance: expect impact on effective areas and detector angular resolution. • MORE PLOTS CAN BE FOUND IN THE BACKUP OR: • http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/CM_MOSCOW_2011/finalPlots ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  25. BACKUP 5 parameters fit - c2 minimization:t0, q, f, x0, y0 • Reconstruction quality factor L: • Linear prefit photon hit coordinates x, y, z, t • Minimization with hit-charge weights. • Maximum likelihood (L) fit computed from MC PDF of time residuals. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  26. BACKUP Statistics effect on zenith distributions: labs = 63 m @ 470 nm (official mupage production @ CERN) ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  27. BACKUP Angular error (b): ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  28. BACKUP ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  29. BACKUP Azimuth: ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  30. BACKUP ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  31. BACKUP Number of lines used in the fit (Nlines): ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  32. BACKUP ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  33. BACKUP GLOSARY: Time slices: ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

More Related