1 / 16

Cherenkov Tracking Calorimeters

This presentation by D. Casper from UC Irvine provides a comprehensive overview of the performance of Cherenkov detectors, particularly focusing on their capabilities around 1 GeV. Key topics include PMT timing, neutrino response, and the evolution of detector generations from 1982 to present. The discussion highlights the implications of detector size, energy resolution issues, and background management in neutrino experiments. Acknowledgments are made for collaborative efforts with other researchers and institutions, emphasizing the role of these detectors in experimental physics and future advancements.

hiero
Télécharger la présentation

Cherenkov Tracking Calorimeters

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. Cherenkov Tracking Calorimeters D. CasperUniversity of California, Irvine

  2. Outline • Overview • Basic performance around 1 GeV • Neutrino response D. Casper, UC Irvine

  3. Acknowledgements and Caveats • Some work done together with: • J. Dunmore, C. Regis (UCI) • J. Burguet-Castell, E. Couce, J.J. Gomez-Cadenas, P. Hernandez (Valencia) • Thanks to: • M. Fechner (Saclay) • Super-Kamiokande and T2K Collaborations • Disclaimers • Not “official” results of any experiment except where noted • Intended as a generic overview • Hybrid (Cherenkov/Scintillation) detectors not considered explicitly D. Casper, UC Irvine

  4. Motivations • Fully active target • Inexpensive detecting medium • Surface instrumentation • PMT cost scales like (Mass)2/3 • Long attenuation length • Size limited primarily by cavern excavation • Originally designed for proton decay searches D. Casper, UC Irvine

  5. What Is Measured • PMT timing • Coincidence trigger • Vertex position • Delayed coincidence • e decay • Nuclear de-excitation • Neutron capture • Cherenkov rings • Particle directions from angle constraint • Showering/Non-showering topology for particle ID • PMT pulse heights • Energies from calorimetry and/or range D. Casper, UC Irvine

  6. Cherenkov Detectors • First Generation (1982-1992) • IMB (3.3 kton, 1%  4.5%) • Kamiokande (0.78 – 1.1 kton, 20%) • Harvard-Purdue-Wisconsin • Second Generation (1996-Present) • Super-Kamiokande (22.5 kton, 40%) • SNO (1.0 kton, 55%) • K2K (0.025 kton, 40%) • Next Generation (ca. 2010+) • T2K 2km (0.025 kton, 40%) • Hyper-Kamiokande (~1 Mton, 40%) • etc… D. Casper, UC Irvine

  7. Basic Performance near 1 GeV • Vertex resolution: ~20-30 cm • Challenge to control the fiducial volume of a small detector • Direction resolution: 2-3° • Negligible compared to neutrino-lepton scattering angle • e/ mis-ID: ~0.4%/ (%photocathode) • For equal e/ purity and efficiency • Verified in test beam • Energy resolution: ~2%/( Evis)1/2 • Additional energy scale uncertainty: 2-3% • Muon decay efficiency: ~95% (+), ~75% () • 22%  capture probability in water D. Casper, UC Irvine

  8. Neutrino Response •  Response (1-ring mu-like sample) • Super-beam disappearance signal • Super-beam appearance background • Beta-beam appearance signal • e Response (1-ring e-like sample) • Super-beam appearance signal • Beta-beam disappearance signal • Beta-beam appearance background D. Casper, UC Irvine

  9. Does Size Matter? • For a given photo-cathode coverage, greater pixelization helps reduce 0e • For a given photo-cathode coverage, a larger detector performs better at e/mu and e/0 separation D. Casper, UC Irvine

  10. Cross-Sections D. Casper, UC Irvine

  11. CCQE Efficiency Loss of partiallycontained  Losses to 0 cuts Fully-contained e CCQE 1-ringe-like efficiency Fully-contained  CCQE 1-ringmu-like efficiency D. Casper, UC Irvine

  12. Signal and Backgrounds 1-ring -like sample 1-ring e-like sample D. Casper, UC Irvine

  13. Contamination vs. Smearing 1-ring -like sample 1-ring e-like sample D. Casper, UC Irvine

  14. CC Energy Transfer Matrices CCQE CC1 CC Other D. Casper, UC Irvine

  15. Higher Energies • Possible to use hadronic calorimetry at higher energies • Does not help with particle ID • Possible to identify clean sample of high-energy muons from interactions outside the detector • “Upward-going muons” • May be able to say something about energy using angle(?) D. Casper, UC Irvine

  16. Conclusions • A very mature and powerful technology • Backgrounds to low-medium energy super-beams or beta beams are fairly manageable • Depends on details of beam, baseline, etc. • Energies above 1.5-2 GeV create difficulties • May be mitigated by migration D. Casper, UC Irvine

More Related