HARP 5% Ta Target Results compared to MARS15

14
Stephen Brooks / [email protected] UKNF meeting, Oxford, September HARP 5% Ta Target Results compared to MARS15

description

HARP 5% Ta Target Results compared to MARS15. HARP Detector Ranges. 250

Transcript of HARP 5% Ta Target Results compared to MARS15

Page 1: HARP 5% Ta Target Results compared to MARS15

Stephen Brooks / [email protected]

UKNF meeting, Oxford, September 2008

HARP 5% Ta Target Results compared to MARS15

Page 2: HARP 5% Ta Target Results compared to MARS15

Stephen Brooks / [email protected] meeting, Oxford, September 2008

HARP Detector Ranges

LAS

Forward calorimeter

250<p_T<500 MeV/c(0.35)<theta<0.95 radians

Page 3: HARP 5% Ta Target Results compared to MARS15

Stephen Brooks / [email protected] meeting, Oxford, September 2008

Pion Cross-section Totals

Page 4: HARP 5% Ta Target Results compared to MARS15

Stephen Brooks / [email protected] meeting, Oxford, September 2008

Quantitative Comparison

• Total production: agreement at ~20% level– MARS15 makes up to 16% too few pi+– Up to 24% too many pi- (same way at all E)

• In cut of interest:– Pi+ closer, deviations under 13%– Pi- worse, MARS15 overestimating by ~30%

• Up to 44%

• Remember that MARS15-G4 was factor 2!

Page 5: HARP 5% Ta Target Results compared to MARS15

Stephen Brooks / [email protected] meeting, Oxford, September 2008

Forward vs.Backwardpi+ above pi-

Page 6: HARP 5% Ta Target Results compared to MARS15

Stephen Brooks / [email protected] meeting, Oxford, September 2008

Negatives

Page 7: HARP 5% Ta Target Results compared to MARS15

Stephen Brooks / [email protected] meeting, Oxford, September 2008

Positives

Page 8: HARP 5% Ta Target Results compared to MARS15

Stephen Brooks / [email protected] meeting, Oxford, September 2008

Sign ratio!(Negativity)

Page 9: HARP 5% Ta Target Results compared to MARS15

Stephen Brooks / [email protected]

UKNF meeting, Oxford, September 2008

Combining HARP data & fits with Muon Yield Probabilities

Michel Sorel (FNAL), Jaap Panman (CERN) performed original Forward Spectrometer fits

John Back made ISS front-end probability map

Page 10: HARP 5% Ta Target Results compared to MARS15

Stephen Brooks / [email protected] meeting, Oxford, September 2008

Sanford-Wang Formula

• Originally for collisions on Be at ~10GeV

• (cos )c8 messes up for >90°• Replace by exp(c8 (cos() - 1)) when including LAS

Page 11: HARP 5% Ta Target Results compared to MARS15

Stephen Brooks / [email protected] meeting, Oxford, September 2008

Thin-to-Thick Estimation

• Assuming no tertiaries/reabsorption

• Thin target - multiply by A

• Thick target - use corrected formula:

…for target length L, interaction length • L = 20cm, Ta = 11.18cm in what follows

A (1 − e−L/) / L

Page 12: HARP 5% Ta Target Results compared to MARS15

Stephen Brooks / [email protected] meeting, Oxford, September 2008

Page 13: HARP 5% Ta Target Results compared to MARS15

Stephen Brooks / [email protected] meeting, Oxford, September 2008

Analysis Summary (so far)

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

0.014

0.016

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Proton Energy (GeV)

Us

efu

l p

i/(p

.Ge

V)

pi+ partial

pi- partial

pi+ extended

pi- extended

pi+ fwd. fit

pi- fwd. fit

Page 14: HARP 5% Ta Target Results compared to MARS15

Stephen Brooks / [email protected] meeting, Oxford, September 2008

Future Work

• Produce fits to both forward spectrometer and LAS at the same time (in progress)

• Investigate models besides Sanford-Wang

• Re-evaluate with best fits

• Including secondary processes is the only way to get the thick target totally right, requires this data integrated into MARS code etc. (pi + N X + pi data useful too)