Updated on Electron Energy Reconstruction Aaron Higuera University - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Updated on Electron Energy Reconstruction Aaron Higuera University of Houston

<latexit sha1_base64="2bLPNg7Z6mGDz4+0voXAmceMN0=">ACaXicbVFdaxNBFJ1dv2qsmlYU0ZfBRGhBwm58qC+Fog+SumiWbjMjt7txk6H8vMXSEsA/5G3/wDvgnGyDaOt9uBzOuXfOzJmilsJhkvyI4mvXb9y8tXW7d2f7r37/Z3dU2cay2HCjTR2VjAHUmiYoEAJs9oCU4WEaXH+Zq1Pv4J1wuiPuKphodiZFpXgDAOV978Nh2/zljNpPD2kmWtU3orD1H8J/X1GlwKdp1lGW8zqJ2QYakVfm/24tPn/fJkjek0dKO9746xQgHaFc1oxTgaSzNeGqQfgBtVCN3Z/tH8cJj3B8ko6YpeBekGDMimjvP+96w0vFGgkUvm3DxNaly0zKLgEnwvaxzUjJ+zM5gHqJkCt2i7pDx9HpiSVsG6Mhpx/690TLl3EoVYVIxXLrL2pr8nzZvsHq1aIWuGwTNL4yqRlI0dB07LYUFjnIVAONWhLtSvmQhVgyf0wshpJefBWcjkfpy9H4ZDw4er2JY4s8Jc/IHknJATki78gxmRBOfkb0cPoUfQr3okfx08uRuNos/OA/FPx4DekOLn5</latexit> Energy Reconstruction i = N hits ✏ i ( X, Y Z ) dQ i W ion X E calo = calorimetry factor · Recombination factor i =1 1600 • epsilon_{i} = correction factor X(life time) and YZ(wire response, etc.) run 5809 Area Normalized 1400 MC • dQ_{i} = hit charge • Data W_{ion} = 23.6e-6, from Argoneut 1200 • calorimetry factor = 5.58e-3 run 5809 • 1000 Recombination factor = 0.63, from FERMILAB- PUB-15-458-ND 800 600 400 200 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Shower Energy [MeV] 2

Energy Reconstruction 1600 Area Normalized MC 1400 Data 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Shower Energy [MeV] Two electrons coming in the same beam spill This is a common feature at all momenta BTW beaminfo says there is just one 3

Energy Reconstruction 3000 3000 Area Normalized Area Normalized MC MC 2500 2500 Data Data 2000 2000 1500 1500 1000 1000 500 500 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 1000 800 600 400 200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 − − − − − Shower Energy/Beamline Energy Beamline Energy - Shower Energy There is a bias between the shower energy and the beamline ~150 MeV Where is this coming from? 4

Energy Reconstruction There is a bias between the shower energy and the beamline ~150 MeV Where is this coming from? Look at true energy deposited using sim::SimChannel h_Eres2 h_Eres2 5000 Entries Entries 26890 26890 Mean Mean 17.23 17.23 3000 Std Dev Std Dev 9.373 9.373 4000 2500 2000 3000 1500 2000 1000 1000 500 0 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 − 30 − 20 − 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 True Energy Deposited [MeV] Beamline Energy - True Energy Deposited Energy loss upstream of the TPC is ~18 MeV Is this consistent with beam experts information? 5

Energy Reconstruction There is a bias between the shower energy and the beamline ~150 MeV Energy loss upstream of the TPC is ~18 MeV Is the calorimetry reconstruction introducing a bias? Using true hits(charge) calculated the energy using our calorimetry method true deposited energy hit charge—> energy 2500 3000 2000 2500 2000 1500 1500 1000 1000 500 500 0 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 True Energy Deposited [MeV] True Energy Deposited (by Calo) [MeV] using our calorimetry method does not introduce a bias 6

<latexit sha1_base64="wDfBEIcGu0PWvXVrkYe0xy1f6HY=">ACR3icbZBLSwMxFIUz9VXrq+rSTbAVXJUZRXQjFLtxI1SwD+jUkzbWgeQ5IRytB/58atO/+CGxeKuDTDqKtFwKHc8/l3nxBxKg2rvi5JaWV1bX8uFjc2t7Z3i7l5Ty1h0sCSdUOkCaMCtIw1DSjhRBPGCkFYxqab/1QJSmUtyZcUS6HA0EDSlGxlq94n25jCWPGLz0Q4Vw4uY9xI6UQRLH0ZI9KVCPhxSk7oQD5EakMlP7KaWhpShmJGFCyXe8WSW3GnBReFl4kSyKreKz7fYljToTBDGnd8dzIdJNsxaTgx5pECI/QgHSsFIgT3U2mHCbwyDp9GEplnzBw6v6eSBDXeswDm+TIDPV8LzX/63ViE150Eyqi2BCBZ4vCmEjYQoV9qnlZdjYCoQVtbdOGSBsLPqCheDNf3lRNE8q3mnl7PakVL3KcOTBATgEx8AD56AKrkEdNAGj+AVvIMP58l5cz6dr1k052Qz+BP5Zxvc3yzw=</latexit> Energy Reconstruction There is a bias between the shower energy and the beamline ~150 MeV Energy loss upstream of the TPC is ~18 MeV Is the calorimetry reconstruction introducing a bias? NO Look at shower completeness h_compl h_compl 1400 Entries Entries 23700 23700 Mean Mean 0.8802 0.8802 Std Dev Std Dev 0.1117 0.1117 1200 1000 P i reco pandora hit i charge compl = 800 P i MC particle hit i charge 600 400 200 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 completeness 7

Energy Reconstruction There is a bias between the shower energy and the beamline ~150 MeV Energy loss upstream of the TPC is ~18 MeV Is the calorimetry reconstruction introducing a bias? NO Look at shower completeness h_compl h_compl 1400 Entries Entries 23700 23700 Mean Mean 0.8802 0.8802 Std Dev Std Dev 0.1117 0.1117 1200 1000 800 600 true hits 400 Pandora shower hits 200 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 completeness time time 5000 5000 4800 4800 4600 4600 4400 4400 4200 4200 4000 4000 3800 3600 3800 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 wire wire 8

Energy Reconstruction Can we recover some of the missing hits? Project the shower direction into a the XZ plane (collection) Look for hits within a 2D cone given then shower length and 30 degrees Calculated completeness again New completeness does not look better it seems that we have some cosmic contamination from intersecting cosmic with the cone… more work need to be done, what about a 3D cone? Look also at purity 1400 time shower 5000 1200 shower + cone 4800 1000 4600 4400 800 4200 600 4000 3800 400 3600 200 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 wire 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 completeness 9

Energy Reconstruction Recombination factor: Given our E-field recombination factor is approximately(box mode) ~0.7 However a recombination value of 0.63 gives better results? 3500 True energy deposited True hits w/ calorimetry & R = 0.63 3000 True hits w/ calorimetry & R = 0.7 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 True Energy Deposited (by Calo) [MeV] 10

Energy Reconstruction 1000 using calo 2500 800 2000 600 1500 400 1000 200 500 0 0 − 200 − 150 − 100 − 50 0 50 100 150 200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 True Energy Deposited - True Energy Deposited (by Calo) True Energy Deposited [MeV] Fitting multiple gaussians to a long pulse is just an approximation An alternative would be use recob::Wire signals and sum up the ADC values on each wire based on the shower hit peak time 11

Summary • We understand (sort of) where the bias is coming from in the energy reconstruction • Biggest contribution comes from missing hits in the shower • Upstream energy loss according to simulation is ~18 MeV according to beam experts is ~50 MeV • Recombination factor still an open question 12

The End 13