1 / 13

Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering on the neutron at JLab with CLAS12

e’. ~. e. t. g. H, H, E, E (x,ξ,t). g L *. (Q 2 ). x+ξ. x-ξ. INFN Frascati, INFN Genova, IPN Orsay, LPSC Grenoble SPhN Saclay University of Glasgow. ~. p’. p. Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering on the neutron at JLab with CLAS12. CLAS12 Central Detector Meeting

sibyl
Download Presentation

Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering on the neutron at JLab with CLAS12

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. e’ ~ e t g H, H, E, E (x,ξ,t) gL* (Q2) x+ξ x-ξ INFN Frascati, INFN Genova, IPN Orsay, LPSC Grenoble SPhN Saclay University of Glasgow ~ p’ p Deeply Virtual Compton Scatteringon the neutron at JLab with CLAS12 CLAS12 Central Detector Meeting Saclay, 12/02/09 CLAS12 Workshop, Genova, 2/27/08 S. Niccolai, IPN Orsay

  2. nDVCS with CLAS12: kinematics Physics and CLAS12 acceptance cuts applied: W> 2 GeV2, Q2 >1 GeV2,–t < 1.2 GeV2 5° < qe < 40°, 5° < qg < 40° DVCS/Bethe-Heitler event generator with Fermi motion, Ee = 11 GeV (Grenoble) <pn>~ 0.4 GeV/c More than 80% of the neutrons have q>40° → Neutron detector in the CD is needed! CD Detected in forward CLAS Not detected ed→e’ng(p) Detected in FEC, IC PID (n or g?), p, angles to identify the final state pμe + pμn + pμp = pμe′ + pμn′ + pμp′ + pμg In the hypothesis of absence of FSI: pμp = pμp’ → kinematics are complete detecting e’, n (p,q,f), g FSI effects can be estimated measuring eng, epg, edg on deuteron in CLAS12 (same experiment)

  3. CND: constraints & design Central Tracker CTOF CND • limited space available (~10 cm thickness) • limited neutron detection efficiency • no space for light guides • compact readout needed • strong magnetic field (~5 T) • magnetic field insensitive photodetectors (APDs, SiPMs or Micro-channel plate PMTs) • CTOF can also be used for neutron detection • Central Tracker can work as a vetofor charged particles MC simulations done for: • efficiency • PID • angular resolutions • reconstruction algorithms • background studies Detector design under study: scintillator barrel

  4. Simulation of the CND y x z • Geometry: • Simulation done with Gemc (GEANT4) • Includes the full CD • 4 radial layers (or 3, if MCP-PMTs are used) • 30 azimuthal layers (can still be optimized) • each bar is a trapezoid (matches CTOF) • inner r = 28.5 cm, outer R = 38.1 cm Reconstruction: • Good hit: first with Edep > threshold • TOF = (t1+t2)/2, with t2(1) = tofGEANT+ tsmear+ (l/2 ± z)/veff • tsmear = Gaussian with s= s0/√Edep (MeV) • s0 = 200 ps·MeV ½→ σ ~ 130 ps for MIPs • β = L/T·c, L = √h2+z2 , h = distance between vertex and hit position, assuming it at mid-layer • θ = acos (z/L), z = ½ veff (t1-t2) • Birks effect not included (will be added in Gemc) • Cut on TOF>5ns to remove events produced in the magnet and rescattering back in the CND

  5. CND: efficiency, PID, resolution Layer 2 Layer 1 Layer 3 Layer 4 Efficiency ~ 10-16% for a threshold of 5 MeV and pn = 0.2 - 1 GeV/c Efficiency: Nrec/Ngen Nrec= # events with Edep>Ethr. pn= 0.1 - 1.0 GeV/c q = 50°-90°, f = 0° “Spectator” cut Dp/p ~ 5% Dq ~ 1.5° • b distributions (for each layer) for: • neutrons with pn = 0.4 GeV/c • neutrons with pn = 0.6 GeV/c • neutrons with pn = 1 GeV/c • photons with E = 1 GeV/c • (assuming equal yields for n and g) n/g misidentification for pn≥ 1 GeV/c

  6. CLAS 12 Recent measurements at OrsayCEA – Orme des MerisiersDec. 2-3, 2009 B. Genolini, T. Nguyen Trung, J. Pouthas http://ipnweb.in2p3.fr/~detect

  7. Main issues • Requested time resolution < 200 ps RMS • Plastic scintillator (best ≈2.5 ns FWHM) • Large number of photoelectrons: > 100 • High magnetic field (5T): no PMT • SiPM (MPPC, GAPD, etc.) • APD • MCP PMT • 60-cm long scintillator: • Important light losses (wrapping, absorption) • Spread of the photon time distribution Plastic scintillator (BC408) w h l = 60 cm

  8. The test bench at Orsay Reference readout PMT (XP20D0) Coincidence scintillators • Scintillator: 60×3×3 cm^3, BC408 • Trigger: the time reference is taken from the thickest scintillator, validated by the coincidence of the two others • Mobile support to scan the scintillator • Test readout: PMT as the reference, or SiPM (in a box, for shielding) Mobile support Trigger scintillator Test readout: PMT or SiPM Test Ref Trig

  9. Results Thi Nguyen Trung Bernard Genolini S. Pisano J. Pouthas Single pe Test σ2test =1/2 (σ2test,trig + σ2test,ref − σ2ref,trig) Ref Trig • Test = 1 SiPM Hamamatsu • (MPPC 1x1 mm2) • sTOF ~ 1.8 ns • rise time ~ 1 ns • nphe ~1 • Test = PMT • sTOF < 90 ps • nphe ~1600 • Test = 1 SiPM Hamamatsu • (MPPC 3x3mm2) • rise time ~5 ns (> capacitance) • more noise than 1x1 mm2 • Test = 1 APD Hamamatsu • (10x10 mm2 ) • sTOF ~ 1.4 ns • high noise, high rise time • Test = 1 MCP-PMT Photonis/DEP • (two MCPs) • sTOF ~ 130 ps • tested in B field at Saclay • (end of November)

  10. Extruded scint. + WLS fiber Typical signals • Extruded scintillator made at Triumph • Wavelength shifting fiber (best results with multi cladding): > 10 pe • Measurement with a 1×1 m2 MPPC (Hamamatsu SiPM) and a PMT (Photonis XP20D0) • Time resolution: 1.4 ns RMS 100 ns PMT averaged signal 20 ns

  11. MCP-PMT • Double-stage MCP (Photonis-DEP) • Time resolution without magnetic field = 130 ps • Test at CEA under magnetic field: not working at 5 T (amplitude ratio = 10-4)

  12. Simulation of the light collection Simulations with Litrani Pulse shapes Relative light yields Scint. 2 2 layers Scint. 1 Prototype (0 layer) Scint. 1 Scint. 2 3 layers Adjusted on the Prototype measurements Scint. 3 Time resolution along the scintillator length

  13. Issues 1/Can we obtain ~150 ps time resolution give the existing constraints ? (B-field, space, photodetector lifetime,…) ? (3m MCP-PMTs, APDs, SiPMs,…) 2/If not, can we afford to give up on the TOF measurement ? TOF measurement has three purposes: A/n/g separation B/ pn measurement C/ q measurement Energy deposition profile (1cm2 scintillator trapezoids) ? Preshower ? Pulse shape analysis ? Could measuring only (pe,qe,fe), (pg,qg,fg),(qn,fn) be enough ? Additional segmentation in q 3/Measuring the recoil proton instead ?

More Related