1 / 38

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.

zona
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 length 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-antineutrinos, 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-antineutrinos (20 files for muons, 20 files for neutrinos and 20 files for antineutrinos). 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 (muonsabs55-abs63, neutrinos + antineutrinos abs55) with previous Monte Carlo productions and data agreement  Choosed the “most common” one (≈ data sampled in MC, data size to compare, muons + neutrinos production, etc.). • 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 weights for MC: • Lifetime for muons: 2*8320/86400 = 0.19 days. • Weights for neutrinos-antineutrinos: 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-Gonzalez (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-antineutrinos.  Thanks to 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 help about software details !!! ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  9. Simulation “Self-computed” water tables + Same SoS file  1 mupage file for labs = 63 m @ 470 nm • Remarks: • Water tables produced by Annarita to Juan Pablo and the mine ones, are equivalent . • Reproducibility of the simulation chain and equivalence among scripts are OK. • Run-dependent simulations (ANTARES-PHYS-2010-008)  Agreement MC / data should be independent of the SoS file  MC Sampling with a SoS file based on 2008 data subsample. Data/MC comparisons with the same data subsample. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  10. Simulation Juan Pablo (Amsterdam) (labs = 55 m) My production (labs = 55 m) tcosth > 0 && beta < 1 Ratio Data/MC Data > MC; R > 1Data < MC; R < 1 • Nice agreement in general, main differences mainly could come from statistical reasons (for m), data sample to compare and MC sampling, and probably KM3 version. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  11. Simulation • What kind of information do we have? • Reconstructed data: • AAFit v0r8 to avoid bug alignment in V0R6: alignment “isvalid” issue (ELOG 521/527). • Reconstructed MC (muons + neutrinos-antineutrinos): • AAFit v0r6 Not affected by the below bug founded (obviously). • Reconstructed data + MC: • 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 information from time residuals computed from muon tracks. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  12. Selected results Reconstruction quality parameter (L): • Lack of muon events for some cases  STATISTICS DEPENDENT (few runs to compare)  Huge ratios (-6<L<-5.5). • Well reconstructed in general, except some extremes models which could be discarded (blue and blue sky curves: lsca~22 m). • Muons tracks quality doesn’t seem enough affected by the scattering length within ~ 58 % of confidence for h ≥ 0.11. • Neutrinos tracks quality is more sensitive to the scattering length, around 23 % of confidence, for reasonable models. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  13. Selected results • Lack of muon events for some cases  STATISTICS DEPENDENT (few runs to compare)  Huge ratios (-6<L<-5.5). • Some extremes models could be discarded (grey and red curves: lsca~22 m). • Muons tracks quality are not enough affected by the scattering and absorption length. • Neutrinos tracks quality seems to be more sensitive to the scattering and to the absorption length spectrum. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  14. Selected results Reconstruction quality parameter summary: The quality of a reconstructed track will not be affected unless the lsca trends to increase to extreme values (~22 m). Muons tracks are less sensitive to the labs and lsca, it is not seen for neutrinos. The contribution of Rayleigh scattering could be between 0.11 < h < 0.17. The water models: 63/41/0.11, 55/53/0.17 and 55/41/0.11 fit better to data  lsca,eff≈ 227 m. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  15. Selected results Number of hits used in the fit (Nhit): • The most extreme model could be discarded: blue curve 63/22/0.17. • Two models agree to peak where we expect direct photons: red line (63/53/0.17) and pink line (63/41/0.11)  N < 80. • Remaining two models agree to tail where we expect scattered photons: green line (63/41/0.17) and blue sky line (63/22/0.02). ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  16. Selected results • The most extreme model could be discarded: grey curve 55/22/0.17. • The most flattest distribution is seen for the green curve model (55/53/0.17), however it doesn’t match to peak level, less events are expect compared to data. • Remaining models have a significant differences and the disagreement for peaks and tails is seen. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  17. Selected results Number of hits summary: An increased labs fit better to peaks, but a reduced labs fit better to tails. The best models which could be fit to data: 63/41/0.11, 55/53/0.17 and 55/41/0.11. Extreme scattering models (lsca=22 m) experience the worst agreement to data, except for the very delayed photons (N > 80). ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  18. Selected results Zenith angle of the fitted track (cosq): • The extreme blue and blue sky curve model could be discarded. • Most of neutrino events are lost close to the horizon (cosq ≈ 0; 90º), and most of them arrive perpendicular to the detector (cosq ≈ 1; 0º). • For down-going muons there is a reasonable agreement for the selected model 63/41/0.11. Not enough up-going muons probably due to the reduced MC data sample to compare, this effect is seen some values before cosq < 0. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  19. Selected results • The extreme grey and red curves models could be discarded. • The reduced MC data sample in the neutrino region restricts the comparison. • A similar shape is seen for ratios for down-going muons for the founded “best models”, but once again, a mass production can be proper to explain the lack of statistics for cosq > -0.1 for up-going muons and up-going neutrinos. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  20. Selected results Zenith angle summary: An labs effect is expected for tracks (m and n), just close to the horizon. The bests models which could be fit to data are: 55/53/0.17, 55/41/0.11 and 63/41/0.11. A mass MC production is so relevant in order to support the current analysis. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  21. Selected results Azimuth angle of the fitted track: • The extreme blue curve model could be discarded. • Muons and neutrino events coming from a large range of azimuth angle, seem not to be enough affected by scattering and absorption. • The best model which fits better to data is 63/41/0.11. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  22. Selected results • The extreme grey and red curves models could be discarded. • Muons and neutrino events coming from a large range of azimuth angle, seem not to be enough affected by scattering and absorption. • The best models which fit better to data are 55/53/0.17 and 55/41/0.11. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  23. Selected results Azimuth angle summary: The muons and neutrino tracks coming in a large range of azimuth angle, don’t seem to be enough affected due the scattering and absorption. The best models which could be fit to data are: 55/53/0.17, 55/41/0.11 and 63/41/0.11. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  24. Selected results • Time residuals for the detector lines (thit - texp):m tracks • Arrival time of photons is expressed relative to the expected (theoretical) arrival time (texp) which can be computed from the muon tracks parameters: resulting time residuals (r). The true arrival time (thit) could be change due to photons emitted from secondary electrons being their path influenced by the scattering. • Data  binary file (JP Gomez-Gonzalez) from: • /sps/km3net/users/jpgomez/ANTARES/Physics/v2r7/Linux-x86_64/TimeResidualsv2r5_data.exe • It requires AAFit CalReal format files: most recent ones (affected due the alignment bug): • /hpss/in2p3.fr/group/antares/user/schussl/data/AAFit/v0r6/AartsLineOffsets • (No available information on v0r8 in CalReal format yet) • Monte Carlo  binary file from: • /sps/km3net/users/jpgomez/ANTARES/Physics/v2r7/Linux-x86_64/TimeResidualsv2r5_save2.exe • My own reconstructed files with v0r6 are shielded against alignment bug. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  25. Selected results • The extreme blue curve model could be discarded. • Distribution of the time residuals for data is more shifted to smaller values than the MC ones  Could be an effect due to the “alignment bug” (thit < texp, increased hit amplitudes) - software details?  To check. • The models 63/53/0.17 - 63/41/0.11, seem to fit better to data, specially at the tails level. However, less entries are seen for data than for MC distributions, specially at peak level. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  26. Selected results • The extreme grey and red curves models could be discarded. • Distribution of the time residuals for data is more shifted to smaller values than the MC ones  Could be an effect due to the “alignment bug” (thit < texp, increased hit amplitudes) or software details?  To check. • The models 55/53/0.17 - 55/41/0.11, seem to fit better to data, specially at the tails level. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  27. Selected results thit-texp [ns] Time residuals summary: An Time residuals summary: A general shift ~ 2 ns is seen for MC concerning to data reconstructed with v0r6. Is it a possible effect due to the “alignment bug” or due to software details or calibration constants? A reduced labs (i.e, 55/53/0.17 – 55/41/0.11) seems to fit better to data at a peak level, instead a better agreement is “slightly” seen for tails for a increased labs(i.e, 63/41/0.11). thit-texp [ns] ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  28. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK • A systematic data/MC comparison for optical properties studies has been presented for a reduced MC data sample. • The quality of a reconstructed track could not be affected unless the lsca trends to increase to extreme values (~22 m). Contribution of Rayleigh scattering could be between 0.11 < h < 0.17 and lsca,eff ≈ 227 m. • An labs effect is expected for tracks (m and n), just close to the horizon looking at zenith angle. Muons and neutrino tracks coming from a large range of azimuth angle don’t seem to be enough affected due the scattering and absorption. • A general shift ~ 2 ns is seen for MC concerning to data reconstructed with v0r6 in time residuals distributions, a possible effect due to the “alignment bug”, software details or calibration constants? A reduced labs seems to fit better to data at a peak level, instead a slightly better agreement is seen for tails for a increased labs try time residuals on AAFit v0r8. • How much the correct model could matters? The best models which fit to data are founded for 63/41/0.11, 55/53/0.17 and 55/41/01.11. but it has to be confirmed for a mass production (done up to KM3 level). Time residuals points to a reduced absorption length model. • A tentative “to do list”: reconstructed and no reconstructed data • 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, detector angular resolution and sensitivity studies, test on BBFit? Review to the reconstruction PDF for influence of scattering and else? • MORE PLOTS IN THE BACKUP OR: http://ific.uv.es/~yepes/CM_MOSCOW_2011/talk/finalPlots ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

  29. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  37. BACKUP Time residuals: ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Moscow, June 06th-10th

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

More Related