Transcript Particle production vs energy M. Bonesini Sezione INFN Milano Bicocca, Dipartimento di Fisica G.

Particle production vs energy
M. Bonesini
Sezione INFN Milano Bicocca,
Dipartimento di Fisica G. Occhialini
1
Outline
• Targetry for Nufact
– HARP
• Large Angle Data analysis
• Comparison with MC simulations
• Targetry for conventional neutrino beams
– HARP for K2K, MINIBoone
– NA56/SPY for WANF,CNGS, NuMI
• Targetry for EAS and atmospheric neutrino
• Future experiments
• Conclusions
2
Towards a Neutrino Factory: the challenges
•
Target and collection (HARP/MERIT)
– Maximize + and - production
– Sustain high power (MW driver)
– Optimize pion capture
INTENSE PROTON SOURCE (MW); GOOD
COLLECTION SCHEME
•
Muon cooling (MICE)
– Reduce +/- phase space to
capture as many muons as
possible in an accelerator
•
Muon acceleration
– Has to be fast, because muons
are short-lived !
3
Why dedicated Hadroproduction expts:
conventional neutrino beams
Ingredients to compute a
neutrino flux :
 (and k) production cross
section (use same target and
proton energy than proton
driver of the experiment)
Reinteractions (take data
with thin and thick target))
All the rest: Simulation of the
neutrino line: An “easy”
problem.
4
Simulation of neutrino beams
1. Primary
target production
2. re-interactions
in target
3. re-interactions
in beamline
Full Montecarlo simulation
(MARS, FLUKA, Geant 3 or 4)
Fast simulation (parametrization of
hadron production data, re-int models)
Good for study
of systematics
Good for
beamline
optimization
5
Available data for simulations of n beamlines
• Low energy beams (NuFact, K2K, MiniBOONE …);
mainly HARP
• High energy beams (WANF, CNGS, NuMI, …):
NA20, NA56/SPY and coming soon MIPP,
NA61/SHINE
• In addition a lot of old not-dedicated hadron
production experiments, mainly with big
systematic errors and poor statistics
 I will speak mainly of HARP (with an detour on
NA56/SPY): see M.G. Catanesi’s talk for the others
6
Physics goals of HARP
2000 – 2001 Installation
2001- 2002 Data taking
•Input for prediction of
neutrino fluxes for the
MiniBooNE and K2K
experiments
•Pion/Kaon yield for the
design of the proton
driver of neutrino
factories and SPL- based
super-beams
•Input for precise
calculation of the
atmospheric neutrino flux
and EAS
Systematic study of hadron production:
Beam momentum: 3-15 GeV/c
Target: from hydrogen to lead
•Acceptance over full solid angle
•Final state particle identification
•Input for Monte Carlo
generators (GEANT4,
e.g. for LHC or space
applications)
7
Targetl
Target
length
Beam
(l%)
Momentum
(GeV)
C
2
±3
Al
(2001)
±5
#events
(Mevts)
Be
±8
Cu
Solid
targets
Sn
5
± 15
Ta
Pb
± 12
233.16
100
For
negative
polarity,
only 2%
and 5%
K2K
Harp detector layout and data
taken .
MiniBooN
E
Be
Cu
“button”
Cu
Cu
“skew”
Cu
Cryogenic
Barrel spectrometer (TPC) + forward
spectrometer (DCs) to cover the full
solid angle, complemented by PID
detectors
Al
targets
+12.9
5, 50, 100,
replica
+8.9
+12.9, +15
2
+12
N7
±3
08
±5
D1
6 cm
±8
15.27
22.56
1.71
1.69
58.43
± 12
H1
± 15
Water
H2
18 cm
±3, ±8,
±14.5
13.83
H20
10, 100
+1.5,
+8(10%)
9.6
8
n factory design
•
•
maximize +(-) production yield as a
function of:
•
•
•
•
proton energy
target material
geometry
collection efficiency (pL,pT)
but different simulations show large
discrepancies for  production
distributions, both in shape and
normalization. Experimental
knowledge is rather poor (large
errors: poor acceptance, few
materials studied)
 aim: measure pT
distribution with high
precision for high Z
targets
9
HARP Large Angle Analysis
Beam momenta:
3, 5, 8, 12 GeV/c
Data:
5% lI targets Be,C,Al,Cu,Sn,Ta,Pb
TPC tracks:
>11 points and momentum measured and track originating in target
PID selection
Corrections:
Efficiency, absorption, PID, momentum and angle smearing by unfolding
method
Backgrounds:
secondary interactions (simulated)
low energy electrons and positrons (all from 0)
predicted from + and - spectra (iterative) and normalized to identified e+-.
Full statistics analysed (“full spill data” with dynamic distortion
corrections) although no significant difference is observed with the
first analysis of the partial data (first 100-150 events in the spill).
10
The Target/TPC Region
target
MWPCs
TPC readout
connectors
beam HALO veto
RPC
modules
11
Spectrometer performance
momentum
resolution
0.35
0.3
0.25
momentum
calibration:
cosmic rays
elastic scattering
entries
140
0.4
120
100
80
0.2
60
0.15
40
0.1
20
0
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
elastic scattering:
absolute calibration of
efficiency
momentum
angle
(two spectrometers!)
PID:
dE/dx used
for analysis
TOF used to
determine
efficiency
0
entries
0.05
-p PID with dE/dx
200
400
600
800
1000 1200 1400 1600
dE/dx (ADC counts)
70
-e PID with dE/dx
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000 1200 1400 1600
dE/dx (ADC counts)
12
The two spectrometers match each other
13
9 angular bins: p-Ta + Pion production yields
p
forward
0.35 < q < 1.55
backward
1.55 < q < 2.15
14
p-Ta -
Pion production yields
forward
0.35 < q < 1.55
backward
1.55 < q < 2.15
15
Neutrino
factory
study
+
p+
yield/Ekin
Cross-sections to be fed
into neutrino factory
studies
to find optimum design:
Ta and Pb x-sections at
large angle (see Eur. J.
Phys C51 (2007) 787)
16
Comparisons with MC
Many comparisons with models from GEANT4 and MARS are
being done, starting with C and Ta
Some examples will be shown for C and Ta
Binary cascade
Bertini cascade
Quark-Gluon string models (QGSP)
Frittiof (FTFP)
LHEP
MARS
Some models do a good job in some regions, but there is no
model that describes all aspects of the data
17
3 GeV/c p-Ta +/-
18
8 GeV/c p-Ta +/5% l target
MODELS
19
8 GeV/c p-C +/5% l target
MODELS
20
Comparison with MC at Large Angle
1. Data available on many thin (5%) targets from light nuclei
(Be) to heavy ones (Ta)
2. Comparisons with GEANT4 and MARS15 MonteCarlo
show large discrepancies both in normalization and
shape
– Backward or central region production seems
described better than more forward production
– In general + production is better described than production
– At higher energies FTP models (from GEANT4) and
MARS look better, at lower energies this is true for
Bertini and binary cascade models (from GEANT4)
– Parametrized models (such as LHEP) have big
discrepancies
– CONCLUSIONS: MCs need tuning with HARP data for
pinc<15 GeV/c
21
n beams flux prediction
• Energy, composition, geometry of a neutrino beam is
determined by the development of the hadron interaction
and cascade  needs to know  spectra, K/  ratios
•K2K : Al target, 12.9 GeV/c
Al targets 5%, 50%, 100% l (all
pbeam), K2K target replica (12.9
GeV/c)
Oscill.
MAX

special program with K2K replica target
M.G. Catanesi et al., HARP, Nucl. Phys. B732 (2006)1
M. H. Ahn et al., K2K, Phys. Rev. D74 (2006)
072003.
•MiniBooNE: Be target 8.9 GeV/c
M.G. Catanesi et al., HARP, Eur. Phys. J. C52(2007)
29
0
0.5
1.0
Beam MC
1.5
2.0
2.5
En (GeV
Beam MC confirmed by
Pion Monitor
Be targets: 5%, 50%, 100% l,
MiniBoone target replica
Precise pT and pLspectra for extrapolation to far detectors and
comparison between near and far detectors
22
HARP forward

p
K
TOF for p=2+-0.25
hadrons
hadrons
electrons
electrons
Ncherenkov
for p below pion threshold
Calorimeter
E/p and E(1st layer)/E
for p above pion threshold
23
0
1
e
2
3 4
5
6
b = d/tc
PID performance
7
1
0.95
pions
protons
kaons
electrons
CERENKOV
0.9
CALORIMETER
0.85
p
TO
F
k
0.8
CERENKO
V
0.75
TOF
CERENKO
V
1
pions
10 -1
CERENKOV
10 -2
0.7
TOF
Data - solid points
Cherenkov efficiency - protons
Cherenkov efficiency - pions
1.05
0.1
0.65
0.09
0.6
Monte Carlo - dashed histogram
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
p (GeV/c)
0.08
2
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
protons:
1-2%
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
p (GeV/c)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
p (GeV/c)
24
2 
d s / (dp d W) (mb / (GeV/c sr))
HARP Be 5% 8.9 GeV/c Results
300
300
30-60 mrad
60-90 mrad
200
200
100
100
0
0
2
4
6
300
0
0
2
120-150 mrad
200
200
100
100
0
2
4
6
300
0
0
2
4
6
300
150-180 mrad
180-210 mrad
200
200
100
100
0
6
300
90-120 mrad
0
4
0.75<p<5 GeV/c
30<theta<210 mrad
relevance for MiniBooNE
0
2
4
6
0
0
2
4
6
p (GeV/c)
HARP results (data points), Sanford-Wang parametrization of
HARP results (histogram)
25
HARP 12.9 GeV/c p+Al Results
HARP in black,
Sanford-Wang
parametrization in red
Sanford-Wang parametrization
HARP data used to:
in K2K and MiniBooNE
beam MC
Translate HARP pion
production uncertainties into
flux uncertainties
Compare HARP results with
previous results
26
p+Al versus GEANT4
27
p+Be versus GEANT4
28
A small detour: the NA56/SPY experiment at SPS
 Measure p, kaon fluxes by 450
GeV/c p on Be ( 5% precision)
->knowledge of neutrino
spectra
 Measure k/p ratio (3%
precision) ->
knowledge ne/nm ratio
 Equipped H6 beam from NA52
experiment in North Area
 Available results were parametrized
 Primary p flux measured by
(BMPT parametrization) or used to tune
SEM
available MC (such as Fluka). Used for
 Different Be targets (shapes, L)
the study of available high-energy
 PID by TOF counters (low
neutrino beamlines: WANF at SPS,
momenta) and Cerenkov (high
CNGS, NuMi
momenta)
29
An application to NUMI (from M. Messier et al.)
Comparison BMPT, Mars, GFLUKA in Minos near/far detecor
30
Atmospheric n flux
•
Primary flux (70% p, 20% He, 10%
heavier nuclei) is now considered to
be known to better than 15% (AMS,
Bess p spectra agree at 5% up to 100
GeV, worse for He)
•
Most of the uncertainty comes from the
lack of data to construct and calibrate a
reliable hadron interaction model.
Model-dependent extrapolations from the
limited set of data leads to about 30%
uncertainty in atmospheric fluxes
 cryogenic targets (or at least nearby C
target data)
primary flux
N2,O
p
2

+
e
-
K

-
n
n
ne
hadron
production
....
decay
chains
•
•
31
Extended Air Showers
Primary
particle
p
+
p
0


p  -
e+
+
p
p+C
0 
n
e-
+

+
e
e
-
+
target
incoming protons and pions
spectra: + and -
-
+
+ Several targets
+ Forward direction
+ Relevant energy range: 10-400 GeV
32
Daughter energy
Hadron production experiments
10
Population of hadronproduction phase-space for
pA → πX interactions.
NA56/SPY
Atherton et. al.
Barton et. al.
1 TeV
Serpukov
νμ flux (represented by boxes)
as a function of the parent and
daughter energies.
Allaby et. al.
100
Eichten et. al.
Measurements.
Cho et. al.
Abbott et. al.
1-2 pT points
3-5 pT points
>5 pT points
But with different targets
(mainly Be)
10
1 GeV
1 GeV
10
100
1 TeV
10
HARP
Parent energy
33
Model comparison: HARP
p+C→++X
34
Model comparison: p+C→-+X
35
++C @ 12 GeV/c
(lower statistics)
• stat error ~ 30-40 %
• syst error ~ 10%
36
-+C @ 12 GeV/c
(high statistics)
Stat error ~ 10%
Syst error ~ 10%
37
Measurements with N2,O2 cryogenic targets
Shape looks similar =>may use simpler C target data (solid,
not cryogenic target)
38
Comparison
with GEANT4
preliminary
39
Covered phase space region
• New data sets
(p+C, ++C and -+C,
pO2, pN2 at 12 GeV/c)
• Important phase space
region covered
• Data available for model
tuning and simulations
• Results on N2 and O2
data are preliminary
[Barton83] Phys. Rev. D 27 (1983) 2580
[NA49_06] Eur. J. Phys., hep-ex/0606028
HARP
(Fermilab)
(SPS)
(PS)
40
Data with incident +Just an example for
FW production
HARP paper in
preparation
•All thin target data taken in pion beams also available
•Interesting to tune models for re-interactions (and shower
calculations in calorimeters etc.)
41
Next measurements/analyses
Energy range and
phase space of interest
Ebeam
8-1000 GeV
p
0.5-11.0 GeV/c
q
0-300 mrad
p+C, +C and K+C
@ 20, 60, 120GeV/c
p+C and +C
@ 30, 40, 50, 158GeV/c
p+C and +-C @ 3-15 GeV/c
N2,O2 targets
42
Summary
• HARP has provided results useful for conventional n
beams study, n factory design, EAS, atmospheric n studies
and in addition for general MC tuning (Geant4, FLUKA
…) with full solid angle coverage, good PID identification
on targets from Be to Pb at low energies (< 15 GeV) with
small total errors (syst+stat < 15 %). About 10 physics
paper published or submitted
• More HARP results coming : forward production
with incident pions, protons on Be to Ta targets;
production with long targets, …
•Comparison with available MC show some
problems
43