Update on Beamtest 06 CU PSF study C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe Università di Perugia and INFN...

Update onUpdate on Beamtest 06 Beamtest 06 CU PSF studyCU PSF study

C. CecchiS. Germani

M. Pepe

Università di Perugia and INFN

Gamma-ray Large Area Gamma-ray Large Area Space TelescopeSpace Telescope

Beam Test Worksop III Jun 28-30, 2006

Beam Test Worksop 3

Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006

C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 2

Jan Conrad StudyJan Conrad Study

evts in the histogram

rel. error

rel. bias

Fit (from Toby’s fuction)

1k 0.05 0.01

10k 0.01 0.0007

100k 0.004 0.005

Count (from Landau’s function)

1k 0.049 0.005

10k 0.015 0.005

100k 0.005 0.005

Jan studied the statistical properties of the Fit (with Toby’s function) and Counting (histogram quantiles) method for the PSF error estimation. •He generated random data followinf Toby’s and Landau’s function and then applied the two methods:

•Fit for Toby’s Function•Counting for Landau’s function

Conclusion:

The two methods give consistent

results

Beam Test Worksop 3



Our Mc DataOur Mc Data

• Tagged gammas:– 4.5 M e- /angle (0, 20, 40 deg)– Beam Energy 1 GeV and 2.5 GeV

• do not cover all the energy range • but we (almost) have the two ends of the energy

spectrum

Beam Test Worksop 3



Tagger Resolution: Tagger Resolution: Close EndClose End setupsetup

Ali

gn

at

clo

se e

nd

(bea

m o

n A

l w

ind

ow

)

Acceptance Range

Beam E Emin Emax

1000 300 750

2500 900 1800

From L. Latronico, G. Spandre, A. BrezVRVS 20 Jun 2006

The range for2500 MeV Beam

has been extrapolated

Beam Test Worksop 3



Tagger Resolution: Tagger Resolution: Far EndFar End setupsetup

Ali

gn

at

far

end

(bea

m a

way

fro

m A

l fr

ame)

Acceptance Range

Beam E Emin Emax

1000 200 400

2500 1200 1800

From L. Latronico, G. Spandre, A. BrezVRVS 20 Jun 2006

The range for2500 MeV Beam

has been extrapolated

Beam Test Worksop 3



DirErr (angular deviation)DirErr (angular deviation)

Beam Test Worksop 3



PSF FitPSF Fit

Tail Structure

Thanks Benoit !!

Beam Test Worksop 3



PSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Close PSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Close End End

Front

Back

Number of Gammas within the Energy Acceptance Range

Beam Test Worksop 3



PSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Close PSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Close EndEnd

Front

Back200k

250k

Beam Test Worksop 3



PSF95 – Beam 0 Deg – Close PSF95 – Beam 0 Deg – Close EnadEnad

Front

Back

Beam Test Worksop 3



PSF95 – Beam 0 Deg – Close PSF95 – Beam 0 Deg – Close EndEnd

Front

Back

Beam Test Worksop 3




200k

400k

Front

Back

Beam Test Worksop 3




Front

Back

Beam Test Worksop 3



PSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Far EndPSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Far End

Front

Back

Beam Test Worksop 3



PSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Far EndPSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Far End

200k

250k

Front

Back

Beam Test Worksop 3



PSF68 - Beam 40 Deg – Far PSF68 - Beam 40 Deg – Far EndEnd

250k

300k

Front

Back

Beam Test Worksop 3



If NumTracks>0 If NumTracks>0 PSF68 - Beam 0 DegPSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Close End – Close End

25k

30k

If the Trigger couldSelect only events with

NumTracks>0 Front

Back

Beam Test Worksop 3



If NumTracks>0 If NumTracks>0 PSF68 - Beam 40 DegPSF68 - Beam 40 Deg – Close End – Close End

25k

40k


NumTracks>0

Front

Back

Beam Test Worksop 3



If NumTracks>0 If NumTracks>0 PSF68 - Beam 0 DegPSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Far End – Far End

25k

30k

Front

Back


NumTracks>0

Beam Test Worksop 3



If NumTracks>0 If NumTracks>0 PSF68 - Beam 40 DegPSF68 - Beam 40 Deg – Far End – Far End

30k

50k

Front

Back


NumTracks>0

Beam Test Worksop 3



Statistics Summary Statistics Summary TablesTables

# gammas within energy range

Close End

Far End

Front

Back

Front

Back

0 deg

200k

250k

200k

300k

40 deg

200k

400k

250k

300k

# gammas within energy range

NumTracks>0

Close End

Far End

Front

Back

Front

Back

0 deg

25k 30k

25k 30k

40 deg

25k 40k

40k 50kAsk For 30-40k per Beam Energy ?

Ask For 250-300k per Beam Energy ?

Beam Test Worksop 3



Jan Conrad Study IIJan Conrad Study II

Jan is talking about events in the histograms therefore we have to compare his results with ours for NumTracks>0

Since we divided front and back events and we are dealing with “real” Mc Data, Jan’s estimation of 10k events to reach the 1% error level is in agreement with our result (events in histogram ~30k/2 )

As Jan anticipated the Fit and Counting method lead to similar errors

Beam Test Worksop 3



Beam PositionBeam Position

Tower Center Tower Border

Tower Crack

Beam Test Worksop 3



Tower Center – Tower Tower Center – Tower BorderBorder

Front

Back

PSF68 Beam 2.5 GeV – 0 deg

Beam Test Worksop 3



Tower Center – Tower Tower Center – Tower CrackCrack

Front

Back

PSF68 Beam 2.5 GeV – 0 deg

Beam Test Worksop 3



Multiple gamma effetctsMultiple gamma effetcts

Beam Test Worksop 3



MCS Options Comparison MCS Options Comparison Front

Beam Test Worksop 3



ConclusionsConclusions

• Number of needed gammas:– seems to be almost independent from the Beam Energy and the

Tagger setup (close end, far end) – needed gammas within energy acceptance:

• 250 k• 30 k if NumTracks>0

• Beam Position:– Tower Border seems not to affect the PSF

• maybe our beem was too far from the Tower edge– Tower Crack affect performances

• smaller efficiency• bigger amount of dead material spoil PSF

• Multiple gammas:– affect the PSF– way to select single gammas not found yet

• MCS:– small difference between Native G4 and OLD32

• difference bigger than 1%

Beam Test Worksop 3



Final Remarks and WishesFinal Remarks and Wishes• From our experience different positions (except tower cracks) should

not affect significantly the PSF

• Energy and angle dependency are rather smooth

• Angular error tails have complex structures (see also Emanueles’ Talk)– we would prefer to have few well measured points in order to

study the tails accurately

• Minimal Configurations Proposal:– Tower Center– 0 deg , 40 deg – Number of gammas in the energy acceptance

• 250k/ BeamEnergy• 30k/ BeamEnergy if NumTracks>0

• Extra useful configureations (peresonal priority order):– Higher number of gammas will allow to study the PSF tails more

deeply– 60 deg Beam (enahnce thick layers conversion and PSF tails…)– Tower Crack @ 0 deg

Update on Beamtest 06 CU PSF study C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe Università di Perugia and INFN...

Documents

Transcript of Update on Beamtest 06 CU PSF study C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe Università di Perugia and INFN...