[Erd108] [External] Re: Additional simulation request

Kondo Gnanvo kagnanvo at jlab.org
Sat Jul 27 14:19:01 EDT 2024 

Hi all,
Also if we are talking about e/h separation below 2 GeV requiring 0.5 mrad angular resolution, the simulation need to be done with electrons also not only pions in these momentum ranges
Best regards
Kondo

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: Erd108 <erd108-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Kiselev, Alexander <ayk at bnl.gov>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2024 2:07:20 PM
To: Sourav Tarafdar <stara at jlab.org>
Cc: erd108 at jlab.org <erd108 at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: [Erd108] [External] Re: Additional simulation request

  Hi Sourav,

  Perhaps. Though "to do" may have various meanings, and it is always good to have some redundancy and / or acceptance overlap in this PID business.

  Cheers,
    Alexander.

________________________________
From: Sourav Tarafdar <stara at jlab.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2024 1:34 PM
To: Kiselev, Alexander <ayk at bnl.gov>
Cc: Nikolai Smirnov <nikolai.smirnov at yale.edu>; erd108 at jlab.org <erd108 at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: [Erd108] [External] Re: Additional simulation request

Hi Alexander,

Sure but based on simulation studies in ePIC framework under Magnetic field by Barrel EMCAL group  they claim to do e/h separation down to 0.5 GeV. I  seriously doubt we really need to focus at 0.5 mrad angular resolution below 2 GeV.

Cheers,
Sourav

On Jul 27, 2024, at 1:14 PM, Kiselev, Alexander <ayk at bnl.gov> wrote:

  Hi Nikolai, Sourav,

  I recall 0.5mrad for hpDIRC is mostly important at higher momenta (say 4-6 GeV/c), but this is true if we are only interested in pi/K separation. In case e/h separation is of interest as well, 0.5mrad requirement should be rescaled in terms of momentum range to this mass hypothesis configuration.

  Cheers,
    Alexander.


________________________________
From: Erd108 <erd108-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Nikolai Smirnov <nikolai.smirnov at yale.edu>
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2024 4:27 PM
To: Sourav Tarafdar <stara at jlab.org>
Cc: erd108 at jlab.org <erd108 at jlab.org>; Shyam Kumar <shyam055119 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Erd108] [External] Re: Additional simulation request

Dear Sourav, Kondo, and Matt.
It is nice that you are going to check carefully tracking - DIRC performance in more details.
Previous experiments with DIRC included, demonstrate the result of the performance in (0.65-0.7 till 5.4.- 5.5) GeV/c limits.
So. data for P<2. will be available, it can be very useful for a cross-check with ToF data, and for e/h identification.
As you know the best EMCAL electron identification (E /P) started ~4.GeV/c.
So DIRC+ToF data can be crucial for smaller momentum, and (maybe) can be used as a TRIGGER.

As Prakhar showed me the barrell setup, the R position of ToF is ~64 cm ( if I am not mistaken it was ~42 cm) and +/- 1.4 in rapidity..
 Please check this simple arithmetics
   Pt cut not to touch ToF = 0.3x1.7x0.64 = 0.33 GeV/c
It means    Etha = 0.  P (momentum) cut = 0.33
                          = 1.                                = 0.47
                          = 1.4                              = 0.66
Now, check charge particle spectrum for different rapidiries from YR, and point these values by pencil.
What will be your conclusion?  What %% of particles will be without PiD?


Sourav, Thank you for your mail and phone message.
I hope to be on duty in a couple weeks.


Best regards, Nikolai.






On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 11:18 AM Sourav Tarafdar <stara at jlab.org<mailto:stara at jlab.org>> wrote:
Dear Nikolai,

Several questions just for clarification .
What is the definition of high and low momentum ?
What do you mean by ToF-R position is changed ? Changed from what to what ?
How are you getting the number of 30% for unavailable particle ?
I agree that  magnetic field is unpleasant for particles of few hundred MeV but ToF has shown the capability of PID (e/pi) at less than 0.5 GeV in ePIC and as a reference here are the studies
 https://indico.bnl.gov/event/17621/contributions/71751/subcontributions/2172/attachments/45491/76755/EPIC_TOF_SIM_COLLAB.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__indico.bnl.gov_event_17621_contributions_71751_subcontributions_2172_attachments_45491_76755_EPIC-5FTOF-5FSIM-5FCOLLAB.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=6nBhCQ9asnI7Gb72jBWQ4g&m=dNEN80LuFbYx4zYhK6bb_jAIeM_Zt6g72f74o0l3y2z_kqeq4IQv7x7WJW1ohYrR&s=wRM0l6ec4x1zpGxVoi2qlNlzSHXziojUAkvVBNxrAuA&e=>
Also Matt can correct me but if I recall it was the input by DIRC group that they need 0.5 mrad over the entire momentum  range .Their simulation studies has only shown their PID capability for pi/K @ 6 GeV and not from 1 GeV from where it is supposed to do PID (may be I am wrong but would like to get reference of detailed DIRC simulation studies).

Last but not least, wish you all the best for recovering soon , so no rush to reply to my questions !

Best regards,
Sourav


On Jul 18, 2024, at 6:59 PM, Nikolai Smirnov <nikolai.smirnov at yale.edu<mailto:nikolai.smirnov at yale.edu>> wrote:

Dear Kondo, Matt, Sourav,

Sorry that I am going once more to point something connected to  PiD in barrell position.
Most probably you discussed all these comments before.

0. For any tracking / PID performance the  "start" point -  particle momentum  spectrums for different rapidities from the Yellow report should be on a "front of you position."

1. DIRC.
  -- The demand of 0.5 mrad tracking precision is a crucial factor for high momentum particle PID
  -- It can / should be absolutely different for low momentum particles. See Cherenkov angle as a function of momentum.
  -- But for low Pt the bending angle is an unpleasant factor.
  --- Scattering (as you know) is more crucial for low momentum.
Check with a DIRC expert if it was not done earlier.

2. ToF R - position was changed.
  Please make a simple calculation and prepare for yourself the result - particle momentum cut (there is no chance to get PID) dure to 1.7T B-field as a function of the rapidity ( 0 -- 1,4), and check with P-spectrum.

3. And the same for DIRC and EMCAL.

Are you sure that a declared Physics can be done if for ~30% of particles PID will not be available!?

It was sent from a medical recovery facility - so, take corrections.

Best regards, Nikolai.










On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 11:26 AM Kondo Gnanvo <kagnanvo at jlab.org<mailto:kagnanvo at jlab.org>> wrote:
Hi Sourav,
What is motivating the discussion of ToF going to 5%?
Kondo

From: Sourav Tarafdar <stara at jlab.org<mailto:stara at jlab.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2024 11:21 AM
To: Matthew Posik <posik at temple.edu<mailto:posik at temple.edu>>; Kondo Gnanvo <kagnanvo at jlab.org<mailto:kagnanvo at jlab.org>>; Gnanvo, Kondo (kg6cq) <kg6cq at virginia.edu<mailto:kg6cq at virginia.edu>>; erd108 at jlab.org<mailto:erd108 at jlab.org>; Shyam Kumar <shyam055119 at gmail.com<mailto:shyam055119 at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [Erd108] [External] Re: Additional simulation request

Sure, I don't care about MPGD resolution. I wanted to stop the discussion of ToF going to 5% to further degrade the angular resolution from current  ~ 3.5 mrad and effectively making DIRC useless in low momentum region.
________________________________
From: Erd108 <erd108-bounces at jlab.org<mailto:erd108-bounces at jlab.org>> on behalf of Matthew Posik <posik at temple.edu<mailto:posik at temple.edu>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2024 11:13 AM
To: Kondo Gnanvo <kagnanvo at jlab.org<mailto:kagnanvo at jlab.org>>; Sourav Tarafdar <stara at jlab.org<mailto:stara at jlab.org>>; Gnanvo, Kondo (kg6cq) <kg6cq at virginia.edu<mailto:kg6cq at virginia.edu>>; erd108 at jlab.org<mailto:erd108 at jlab.org> <erd108 at jlab.org<mailto:erd108 at jlab.org>>; Shyam Kumar <shyam055119 at gmail.com<mailto:shyam055119 at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [Erd108] [External] Re: Additional simulation request

Hi All,

Kondo is correct, the MPGD resolution does not help DIRC PID due to multiple scattering of the inner layers, even when the MPGD resolution is 50um.  Adding the CF support just worsens the resolutions. Additional material will further worsen the angular performance.

Thanks,
Matt

Matt Posik
Research Associate Professor

Temple University
Department of Physics
SERC
1925 N. 12th St.
Philadelphia, PA 19122
USA

TU Office: SERC Room 451


Physics Office: SERC Room 406/4th Floor
________________________________
From: Erd108 <erd108-bounces at jlab.org<mailto:erd108-bounces at jlab.org>> on behalf of Kondo Gnanvo <kagnanvo at jlab.org<mailto:kagnanvo at jlab.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2024 10:39 AM
To: Sourav Tarafdar <stara at jlab.org<mailto:stara at jlab.org>>; Gnanvo, Kondo (kg6cq) <kg6cq at virginia.edu<mailto:kg6cq at virginia.edu>>; erd108 at jlab.org<mailto:erd108 at jlab.org><erd108 at jlab.org<mailto:erd108 at jlab.org>>; Shyam Kumar <shyam055119 at gmail.com<mailto:shyam055119 at gmail.com>>
Subject: [External] Re: [Erd108] Additional simulation request

Hi Sourav
Ok, i will let Matt comment. My main point is whether good spatial resolution MPGD helps achieving the angular resolution requirements at the DIRC. It looks like even before including the CF material, we could not satisfy this requirement even with a 50um MPGD, so

  *   MPGD resolution does not help because multiple scattering of the inner layers is dominant factor
  *   0.5 mrad angular resolution requirements not met even before considering CF support structure

Maybe I am wrong though!
Best regards
Kondo

Get Outlook for iOS<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aka.ms_o0ukef&d=DwMF-g&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=6nBhCQ9asnI7Gb72jBWQ4g&m=Z-rq14gh7Ttjl13bSSNowA51bG3bP9gYNSuO81dopADCTe22ggs-J-ULDN3iDrS8&s=kbTZMwFJyYZeS2fN3W3o1Z9pCSfmXtcmqXoRY937XgA&e=>
________________________________
From: Sourav Tarafdar <stara at jlab.org<mailto:stara at jlab.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2024 10:27:32 AM
To: Kondo Gnanvo <kagnanvo at jlab.org<mailto:kagnanvo at jlab.org>>; Gnanvo, Kondo (kg6cq) <kg6cq at virginia.edu<mailto:kg6cq at virginia.edu>>;erd108 at jlab.org<mailto:erd108 at jlab.org> <erd108 at jlab.org<mailto:erd108 at jlab.org>>; Shyam Kumar <shyam055119 at gmail.com<mailto:shyam055119 at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: Additional simulation request

Hi Kondo,

Just during Monday simulation meeting Matt showed series of studies. Slide 15 in Matt's presentation concludes the effect of CF affects the angular resolution significantly, if I am not mistaken in final conclusion during that presentation ?

Regards,
Sourav
________________________________
From: Erd108 <erd108-bounces at jlab.org<mailto:erd108-bounces at jlab.org>> on behalf of Kondo Gnanvo <kagnanvo at jlab.org<mailto:kagnanvo at jlab.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2024 10:23 AM
To: Sourav Tarafdar <stara at jlab.org<mailto:stara at jlab.org>>; Gnanvo, Kondo (kg6cq) <kg6cq at virginia.edu<mailto:kg6cq at virginia.edu>>; erd108 at jlab.org<mailto:erd108 at jlab.org><erd108 at jlab.org<mailto:erd108 at jlab.org>>; Shyam Kumar <shyam055119 at gmail.com<mailto:shyam055119 at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [Erd108] Additional simulation request

Hi Sourav,
The spatial resolution was already irrelevant even before considering the CF material if i remember well from past studies.
I don’t remember a simulation study that ever show any impact of MPGD resolution on the angular resolution at the DIRC level
Best regards
Kondo

Get Outlook for iOS<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aka.ms_o0ukef&d=DwMF-g&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=6nBhCQ9asnI7Gb72jBWQ4g&m=Z-rq14gh7Ttjl13bSSNowA51bG3bP9gYNSuO81dopADCTe22ggs-J-ULDN3iDrS8&s=kbTZMwFJyYZeS2fN3W3o1Z9pCSfmXtcmqXoRY937XgA&e=>
________________________________
From: Erd108 <erd108-bounces at jlab.org<mailto:erd108-bounces at jlab.org>> on behalf of Sourav Tarafdar <stara at jlab.org<mailto:stara at jlab.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2024 10:11:36 AM
To: Gnanvo, Kondo (kg6cq) <kg6cq at virginia.edu<mailto:kg6cq at virginia.edu>>; erd108 at jlab.org<mailto:erd108 at jlab.org> <erd108 at jlab.org<mailto:erd108 at jlab.org>>; Shyam Kumar <shyam055119 at gmail.com<mailto:shyam055119 at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [Erd108] Additional simulation request

Hi Kondo,

I thought it was 3% Carbon fiber support structure causing multiple scattering which was basically making spatial resolution of MPGD irrelevant ?

Regards,
Sourav
________________________________
From: Gnanvo, Kondo (kg6cq) <kg6cq at virginia.edu<mailto:kg6cq at virginia.edu>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2024 10:07 AM
To: Sourav Tarafdar <stara at jlab.org<mailto:stara at jlab.org>>; erd108 at jlab.org<mailto:erd108 at jlab.org> <erd108 at jlab.org<mailto:erd108 at jlab.org>>; Shyam Kumar <shyam055119 at gmail.com<mailto:shyam055119 at gmail.com>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Additional simulation request

Hi Sourav,
It looks like the material budget already the dominant parameter for the angular resolution study at the DIRC level so it seems very unlikely that there would be any difference between 1% and 5% for the TOF layer
Best regards
Kondo

From: Erd108 <erd108-bounces at jlab.org<mailto:erd108-bounces at jlab.org>> On Behalf Of Sourav Tarafdar
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2024 9:55 AM
To: erd108 at jlab.org<mailto:erd108 at jlab.org>; Shyam Kumar <shyam055119 at gmail.com<mailto:shyam055119 at gmail.com>>
Subject: [Erd108] Additional simulation request

Dear all ,

The request is mostly directed towards Matt and Shyam. I am wondering if it is possible to quickly do additional study on angular resolution @ DIRC location by increasing the material budget of barrel ToF from current 1.0% to 5.0% ? There has been chatter about increasing the material budget of ToF to 5.0% and before it takes a lead it will be good to know it's effect . Based on results shown in the Monday meeting I suppose it will further deteriorate angular resolution at DIRC. Also considering Shyam's method I think the analytical simulation method by Shyam will be good enough if DD4HEP sim is time taking.

Cheers,
Sourav
_______________________________________________
Erd108 mailing list
Erd108 at jlab.org<mailto:Erd108 at jlab.org>
https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/erd108

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/erd108/attachments/20240727/1beac407/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Erd108 mailing list