Near Detector Optimization Task Force Steve Brice, Daniel Cherdack, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
near detector optimization task force
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Near Detector Optimization Task Force Steve Brice, Daniel Cherdack, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 04, 2023 400 likes •608 views

Near Detector Optimization Task Force Steve Brice, Daniel Cherdack, Kendall Mahn Draft Charge to the Task Force The near detector optimization task force is charged to: Develop GEANT4 simulations of the reference design near detector and

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Near Detector Optimization Task Force

Steve Brice, Daniel Cherdack, Kendall Mahn

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Near Detector Optimization Task Force

Draft Charge to the Task Force

2

❑ The near detector optimization task force is charged to: ▪

Develop GEANT4 simulations of the reference design near detector and possible alternatives

▪

Perform a full end-to-end simulation connecting the measurements in the near detector to the far detector systematics using, for example, the VALOR framework

▪

Evaluate the potential benefits of augmenting the reference design with

  • a LAr-TPC
  • the use of a High Pressure Gaseous TPC

▪

Produce a first report on their findings to the DUNE Technical Board by September 2016 and a final report by March 2017.

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Near Detector Optimization Task Force

3

Simulation and Analysis Path

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Near Detector Optimization Task Force

4

VALOR: ND Constraints - Costas Andreopoulos

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Near Detector Optimization Task Force

Points of Contact

5

Flux: Laura Fields Infrastructure: Robert Hatcher Cross-Section Models and Systematics: Lorena Escudero FGT simulation: Tyler Alion & Chris Marshall LAr simulation: Sarah Lockwitz & James Sinclair GAr simulation: Justo Martín-Albo VALOR: Steve Dennis & Lorena Escudero & Costas Andreopoulos FD Simulation: Tingjun Yang & Tyler Alion FD Fit: Daniel Cherdack Figures of Merit: Brian Rebel

  • The points of contact are fully populated, but there is need for more effort

within each of the 3 ND simulation efforts

  • Particularly improving the recon modeling and sample selection and

generally validating what’s been done

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Near Detector Optimization Task Force

Phase 1 - focus on machinery Sept 2015 - Jan 2016

  • Milestone 1: First complete run through of the machinery (before Arlington meeting)
  • Jan 2016

Phase 2 - incrementally add the necessary physics and improve simulations Jan 2016 - Sept 2016

  • Milestone 2: 2nd run through (before SURF meeting)
  • April 2016
  • Milestone 3: 3rd run through to generate material for initial report (before FNAL meeting)
  • August 2016
  • Milestone 4: Initial Report
  • September 2016

Phase 3 - final improvements to the physics and simulations Sept 2016 - Mar 2017

  • Milestone 5: Final run through to generate material for final report (before CERN meeting)
  • December 2016
  • Milestone 6: Final Report
  • March 2017

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Near Detector Optimization Task Force

Top Concerns and Current Focus

7

We are working to alleviate several areas of concern before the 4th Run Through...

  • Is the cross-section systematic model appropriately complex and descriptive of our actual level of

uncertainty? ○ Commissioned a review by T2K experts - following up on recommendations with changes to the model

  • Is the reconstruction cheating appropriately complex?

○ and is it at a comparable level of complexity for the 3 ND options? ○ The leaders of each ND simulation effort have agreed on a common level of complexity and are executing

  • Uncertainties appear to be overconstrained

○ Is it a bug? ○ Carrying out battery of checks including using the same VALOR tool to replicate T2K constraints and compare to T2K official numbers ○ Do the systematic errors allow for too much constraint by not having enough wiggle room? ○ Is the overconstraint come from having reconstruction and event selection that is unrealistically good?

  • Are the constrained (anti)correlations appropriate?

○ Seems like too little anti-correlation between flux and cross-section. Is this true? ○ How do we check? - coupled to the checks being performed in previous bullet

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Near Detector Optimization Task Force

A Priori Cross-Section Uncertainties - VALOR (Lorena Escudero)

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Near Detector Optimization Task Force

ND Task Force Approach to Reconstruction

  • We have a generic problem across the 3 ND options and the FD -

“How do you provide the best mimic of the reconstruction and PID algorithms we will have 10 years from now?” 1) Use the best algorithms we have now 2) Use our experience with past detectors and algorithms to appropriately smear truth quantities

  • For all 4 reconstruction efforts (3ND + 1FD) we are evaluating each required
  • bservable individually, and:

○ Use 1) whenever practical, although this may be limited, esp for the 3 ND

  • ptions

○ Use smearing that is well informed by studies of the full GEANT4 simulations and consistent with 2) ○ Rely upon 2) fully when extracting relevant information from the full GEANT4 simulations presents difficulties beyond the scope of the TF

“Cheating but not lying”

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Near Detector Optimization Task Force

The Output Uncertainties - Steve Dennis

10

Very Preliminary!

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Near Detector Optimization Task Force

The Output Correlation Matrix - Steve Dennis

11

Post-fit FGT correlation matrix Pre-fit correlation matrix

Very Preliminary!

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Near Detector Optimization Task Force

The Output Correlation Matrix - Steve Dennis

12

Post-fit Gaseous Ar TPC correlation matrix Pre-fit correlation matrix

Very Preliminary!

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Near Detector Optimization Task Force

The Output Correlation Matrix - Steve Dennis

13

Post-fit LAr TPC correlation matrix Pre-fit correlation matrix

Very Preliminary!

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Near Detector Optimization Task Force

Final Fits - Steve Dennis & Lorena Escudero & Dan Cherdack

14

CP sensitivity for normal (left) and inverted (right) mass ordering

Very Preliminary!

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Near Detector Optimization Task Force

Figures of Merit - Brian Rebel

15

How the Detectors Perform in the Beam

  • Number of interactions per POT
  • Pile-up in detector due to beam intensity
  • Fraction of energy shared between

neutrino interactions in the same beam spill

  • Fraction of energy shared between cosmic

rays and neutrino interactions How the Detectors Enable Physics Generally

  • Vertex position resolution of the detector (can we tell which nuclear target was struck)
  • Energy resolution for

○ EM showers ○ Hadronic showers ○ Minimum ionizing particles ○ Total neutrino interaction

  • Acceptance of final state particles as a function of energy and direction
  • Fraction of neutrino interactions on each species of nuclear target
  • Fraction of energy contained in the detector as a function of the vertex distance from detector edge
  • Purity for distinguishing different interaction types as a function of energy
  • Energy thresholds for observing different particle species (p, n, π)

How the Detectors Enable Oscillation Physics

  • Sensitivity to δCP using each of the ND
  • ptions
slide-16
SLIDE 16

Near Detector Optimization Task Force

16

Summary

  • The 3rd Run Through of the processing chain is complete

○ Documented at

■ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OarI91-vwgTIMS2Lm8ydLMxnISd_P0IthjkVoiqefCo/edit#

○ VALOR technote coming soon with ID 1712

  • The Initial Report of the Task Force is complete and can be found at

http://docs.dunescience.org:8080/cgi-bin/ShowDocument?docid=1792

  • r

https://www.overleaf.com/5943230rkdrtw#/20548076/

  • The task force has made great strides with each step in the chain having

strong leadership and significant effort

  • 4th Run Through scheduled just before the next Collaboration Meeting
  • Final Report due in March 2017
slide-17
SLIDE 17

Near Detector Optimization Task Force

17

Backups

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Near Detector Optimization Task Force

  • The Task Force will evaluate ND options based just on science
  • Budgetary and other concerns can wait
  • Task force charged with making science based recommendations and any

decisions by the collaboration will likely include other factors.

  • Near Detector performance is judged by its ability to improve

the sensitivity of DUNE to CPV

  • Any Near Detector optimized this way will be very capable of the other analysis

envisaged for the Near Detector

  • Sensitivity to other physics will be a secondary consideration; cannot degrade
  • scillation physics
  • The ND should allow for measurements on the same target

nucleus as the FD (Ar)

  • T2K oscillation systematics increased by target nucleus differences
  • Should include a clear and proven path to extracting cross section

measurements on the target nucleus

18

Axioms

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Near Detector Optimization Task Force

How to Optimize the CP Violation Oscillation Analysis

19

  • Adopt and extend the approach of the experiment that is

presently at the cutting edge of this work – T2K

  • Use the VALOR package for ND fits
  • Inputs
  • Event samples from simulations of the Near Detector options
  • Detailed systematic uncertainties (spectral changes, and priors)
  • Outputs
  • Fits of all possible nuisance parameters for a FD fit
  • A covariance matrix that encodes all prior and correlations
  • Oscillation parameter fits with FD event samples
  • Several current tools in use and development
  • A full VALOR ND+FD fit is also a good possibility