Quick report of a beam test for CsI both-end readout system - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
quick report of a beam test for csi both end readout
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Quick report of a beam test for CsI both-end readout system - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 10, 2023 385 likes •605 views

Nenmatsru (year-end) Quick report of a beam test for CsI both-end readout system 28/12/2017 Tomoo Mari Osaka Univ. Tomoo Mari Nenmatsu 1 Outline KOTO experiment Beam test @ELPH Energy resolution of PMT Conclusion, Prospects

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Nenmatsu Tomoo Mari

Nenmatsru (year-end)

1

Quick report of a beam test for CsI both-end readout system

28/12/2017 Tomoo Mari Osaka Univ.

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Nenmatsu Tomoo Mari

Outline

2

  • KOTO experiment
  • Beam test @ELPH
  • Energy resolution of PMT
  • Conclusion, Prospects

After-party (taken by Shimizu)

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Nenmatsu Tomoo Mari

KOTO experiment, halo neutron B.G.

3

CsI

gamma neutron neutron

PMT PMT PMT PMT

Signal Background Signal: Background: A beam halo neutron makes hadron shower in a CsI crystal, then another neutron from this shower make another cluster.

KL → π0ν¯ ν

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Nenmatsu Tomoo Mari

CsI both-end readout system

4

PMT PMT MPPC

Current readout system Both-end readout system Timing difference between MPPC and PMT = z position

PMT MPPC PMT MPPC

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Nenmatsu Tomoo Mari

Some detail

5

CsI PMT

Current readout system Both-end readout system

reflector

PMT MPPC

Quartz plate

4MPPCs + Quartz Reflector

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Nenmatsu Tomoo Mari

Energy resolution of the PMT

6

Energy resolution of the PMT is expected to change, because

  • Reflector will be replaced with smaller one
  • (material can also be changed)
  • MPPCs will cover the upstream surface of CsI

To evaluate σE of the PMT…

  • 200-800 MeV positron beam data (tested at ELPH)
slide-7
SLIDE 7

Nenmatsu Tomoo Mari

Beam test at ELPH

7

Positrons (200-800 MeV)

CsI

CsI frame Stacked CsI crystals Cosmic ray data were also acquired while the beam was off.

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Nenmatsu Tomoo Mari

Setup

8

◉ Beam

8 large (50x50x500mm3) CsI crystals 4 small (25x25x500mm3) CsI crystals

w/o MPPC w/ MPPC MPPC none 4 MPPCs for L crystals 1 MPPC for S crystals reflector KOTO-reflector (different between crystals) Nishimiya-reflector (silver, square hall) calibration 800MeV positrons cosmic rays (40mm from the up- stream surface of CsI) beam-run

200-800 MeV, beam position was the center of the stack

Other informations: Beam spot size > 10mm

L0 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 S0 S1 S2 S3

beam injection

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Nenmatsu Tomoo Mari

Beam position shift

9

Beam position was deviated 4.5 ~ 6.5 cm from expected position.

L0 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 S0 S1 S2 S3

Large crystals: 50mm x 50mm Small crystals: 25mm x 25mm

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Nenmatsu Tomoo Mari

h[0]

Entries 2156 Mean 3.734e+04 Std Dev 6988 / ndf

2

χ 3.505 / 6 Prob 0.7432 p0 9.9 ± 304.1 p1 1.344e+02 ± 4.047e+04 p2 1030.8 ± 8593 p3 0.026 ± 0.154 −

Integrated ADC 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

3

10 × 50 100 150 200 250 300

crystal L0

h[0]

Entries 2156 Mean 3.734e+04 Std Dev 6988 / ndf

2

χ 3.505 / 6 Prob 0.7432 p0 9.9 ± 304.1 p1 1.344e+02 ± 4.047e+04 p2 1030.8 ± 8593 p3 0.026 ± 0.154 −

crystal L0

h[8]

Entries 1942 Mean 2.797e+04 Std Dev 7679 / ndf

2

χ 21.43 / 13 Prob 0.06479 p0 5.2 ± 149.7 p1 2.395e+02 ± 3.239e+04 p2 916.8 ± 9250 p3 0.03 ± 0.16 −

Integrated ADC 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

3

10 × 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

crystal S0

h[8]

Entries 1942 Mean 2.797e+04 Std Dev 7679 / ndf

2

χ 21.43 / 13 Prob 0.06479 p0 5.2 ± 149.7 p1 2.395e+02 ± 3.239e+04 p2 916.8 ± 9250 p3 0.03 ± 0.16 −

crystal S0

Calibration (w/o MPPC)

10

800MeV positron beam was injected at the center of each crystal

  • Fitted with asymmetric gaussian

crystal L0 crystal S0

◉ Beam

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Nenmatsu Tomoo Mari

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

hs

Entries 10000 Mean 485.6 Std Dev 61.27

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

hl

Entries 10000 Mean 633.8 Std Dev 33.55

Scale factor (w/o MPPC)

11

Geant4 simulation

  • 800MeV positrons
  • x=5mm shifted from center line
  • scale factor := MPV (L) / MPV (S)

deposited E [MeV]

Small crystal Large crystal

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Nenmatsu Tomoo Mari

Calibration (w/ MPPC)

12

Cosmic rays at 40mm from the upstream surface of CsI

h[0]

Entries 734 Mean 2095 Std Dev 785.4 / ndf

2

χ 12.17 / 17 Prob 0.79 Width 25.5 ± 124.5 MP 17.7 ± 2032 Area 4.717e+03 ± 5.166e+04 GSigma 42.4 ± 131.6 Constant 4.10 ± 13.86 Slope 0.001269 ± 0.004327 −

Integrated ADC 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 20 40 60 80 100 120

h[0]

Entries 734 Mean 2095 Std Dev 785.4 / ndf

2

χ 12.17 / 17 Prob 0.79 Width 25.5 ± 124.5 MP 17.7 ± 2032 Area 4.717e+03 ± 5.166e+04 GSigma 42.4 ± 131.6 Constant 4.10 ± 13.86 Slope 0.001269 ± 0.004327 −

crystal L0

h[8]

Entries 618 Mean 1109 Std Dev 519.9 / ndf

2

χ 10.72 / 10 Prob 0.3797 Width 5.2 ± 50 MP 11.1 ± 1004 Area 2.75e+03 ± 4.08e+04 GSigma 14.4 ± 114.3 Constant 0.95 ± 20.09 Slope 0.00 ± 0.01 −

Integrated ADC 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 20 40 60 80 100 120

h[8]

Entries 618 Mean 1109 Std Dev 519.9 / ndf

2

χ 10.72 / 10 Prob 0.3797 Width 5.2 ± 50 MP 11.1 ± 1004 Area 2.75e+03 ± 4.08e+04 GSigma 14.4 ± 114.3 Constant 0.95 ± 20.09 Slope 0.00 ± 0.01 −

crystal S0

  • Fitting function: (landau*gaussian) + pol1
  • MPV of landau is used for calibration
  • Scale factor between large and small crystal = 2.0

◉ Beam

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Nenmatsu Tomoo Mari

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Energy resolution of PMT

13

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

h[0]

Entries 16440 Mean 6.279 Std Dev 0.9121 / ndf

2

χ 19.05 / 15 Prob 0.2113 p0 13.6 ± 1172 p1 0.009 ± 6.705 p2 0.065 ± 1.419 p3 0.010 ± 0.141 −

h[1]

Entries 20490 Mean 12.64 Std Dev 2.418 / ndf

2

χ 32.36 / 21 Prob 0.05375 p0 11.7 ± 1103 p1 0.01 ± 13.69 p2 0.105 ± 1.751 p3 0.00767 ± 0.08453 −

h[2]

Entries 20310 Mean 19.19 Std Dev 3.729 / ndf

2

χ 30.68 / 25 Prob 0.1997 p0 10.1 ± 960.5 p1 0.01 ± 20.65 p2 0.155 ± 2.608 p3 0.00754 ± 0.09318 −

h[3]

Entries 20190 Mean 25.48 Std Dev 4.956 / ndf

2

χ 31.41 / 29 Prob 0.3463 p0 8.8 ± 832.3 p1 0.01 ± 27.32 p2 0.220 ± 2.715 p3 0.00805 ± 0.07025 −

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

h[0]

Entries 16110 Mean 0.2934 Std Dev 0.04156 / ndf

2

χ 12.28 / 12 Prob 0.4235 p0 16.3 ± 1411 p1 0.0004 ± 0.3108 p2 0.00294 ± 0.05863 p3 0.0094 ± 0.1252 −

h[1]

Entries 20100 Mean 0.5783 Std Dev 0.1087 / ndf

2

χ 23.47 / 18 Prob 0.1731 p0 13.2 ± 1243 p1 0.0004 ± 0.6257 p2 0.005 ± 0.086 p3 0.0076 ± 0.0962 −

h[2]

Entries 20700 Mean 0.8756 Std Dev 0.1658 / ndf

2

χ 24.12 / 21 Prob 0.2873 p0 11.7 ± 1121 p1 0.001 ± 0.939 p2 0.0072 ± 0.1165 p3 0.00770 ± 0.09202 −

h[3]

Entries 20490 Mean 1.163 Std Dev 0.2158 / ndf

2

χ 37.05 / 25 Prob 0.05709 p0 10.1 ± 973.4 p1 0.001 ± 1.244 p2 0.0094 ± 0.1108 p3 0.00759 ± 0.06131 −

w/ MPPC w/o MPPC Total Energy [a.u.]

200MeV 400MeV 600MeV 800MeV

comparison @200MeV

peak = (1, 1) Blue: w/ MPPC Red: w/o MPPC w/ MPPC is wider than w/o.

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Nenmatsu Tomoo Mari

Energy resolution of PMT

14

200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2

Graph Graph

Beam energy [MeV] E resolution [%]

Energy resolution := FWHM / MPV

Black: w/ MPPC Red: w/o MPPC

200 300 400 500 600 700 800 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.1 1.12

Graph

/ ndf

2

χ 169.3 / 3 Prob 36 − 1.834e p0 0.002378 ± 1.103 / ndf

2

χ 169.3 / 3 Prob 36 − 1.834e p0 0.002378 ± 1.103

Graph

Beam energy [MeV] Black / Red

12%

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Nenmatsu Tomoo Mari

Conclusion / Prospects

15

Conclusion

  • We tested new CsI readout system for the calorimeter upgrade.
  • I checked how the MPPCs affect energy resolution of PMTs.
  • Energy resolution got worse (max: 12% @200MeV)

Prospects

  • Analysis of timing resolution of both-end readout system
  • Analysis of other runs (backward run, rotated run, etc…)
  • Optical photon simulatoin
slide-16
SLIDE 16

Nenmatsu Tomoo Mari

Back up

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Nenmatsu Tomoo Mari

Setup

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Nenmatsu Tomoo Mari

Asymmetric Gaussian

18

MPV = µ FWHM = µ + ξσ0/2 1 − ξσ1/2 − µ − ξσ0/2 1 + ξσ1/2 GA(x) = N0 exp  − (x − µ)2 2(σ1x + σ0)2

  • N0, µ, σ0, σ1

error = δµ

4 parameters:

ξ ≡ 2 √ 2 ln 2

error = s ξ 1 − (ξσ1/2)2 [(σ1δµ)2 + (δσ0)2] + ✓ξ 2 ◆2  µ − ξσ0/2 (1 + ξσ1/2)2 − µ + ξσ0/2 (1 − ξσ1/2)2

  • (δσ1)2
slide-19
SLIDE 19

Nenmatsu Tomoo Mari

Asymmetry of energy deposition

19

1 − 0.5 − 0.5 1 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 1 − 0.5 − 0.5 1 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

Blue -> (Rotated run) -> Red -> (Backward run) -> Green

X asymmetry Y asymmetry

X asymmetry: S1 - S0 Y asymmetry: S0 - S3

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Nenmatsu Tomoo Mari

Total energy deposition (Geant)

20

Edep[0]+Edep[1]+Edep[2]+Edep[3]+Edep[4]+Edep[5]+Edep[6]+Edep[7]+Edep[8]+Edep[9]+Edep[10]+Edep[11] 660 680 700 720 740 760 780 100 200 300 400 500

Edep[0]+Edep[1]+Edep[2]+Edep[3]+Edep[4]+Edep[5]+Edep[6]+Edep[7]+Edep[8]+Edep[9]+Edep[10]+Edep[11]

htemp

Entries 10000 Mean 744.9 Std Dev 14.07

Edep[0]+Edep[1]+Edep[2]+Edep[3]+Edep[4]+Edep[5]+Edep[6]+Edep[7]+Edep[8]+Edep[9]+Edep[10]+Edep[11]

total deposited energy [MeV] Geant4 simulation. Incident beam energy 800 MeV MC by gsim4

Low energy tail does not exist…