1 / 18

GLD DOD

GLD DOD. Akiya Miyamoto KEK 2 nd GLD DOD meeting. All figures shown here are preliminary. Section 1. Tools for performance study JSF/Quick Simulator Jupiter Detector Model Jupiter Detector Figure (Fig. 1-1) Summary table of Detector configuration for Jupiter (Table 1-1)

olive
Download Presentation

GLD DOD

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. GLD DOD Akiya Miyamoto KEK 2nd GLD DOD meeting All figures shown here are preliminary

  2. Section 1 • Tools for performance study • JSF/Quick Simulator • Jupiter • Detector Model • Jupiter Detector Figure (Fig. 1-1) • Summary table of Detector configuration for Jupiter (Table 1-1) • Satellites: Description of Analysis Tools • Satellites analysis flow • Track fitter and Kalman fitter  Yamaguchi’s Master Thesis • Cheated PFA algorithm description • Realistic PFA algorithm description  Fujikawa’s Master Thesis

  3. Fig 1-1

  4. Table 1-1 : Table of detector configuration parameter

  5. Section 2: • Single particle performance by Jupiter • Momentum Resolution by TPC+IT+VTX by A.Yamaguchi • Vs Pt (Fig 2-1), vs CosTheta • Impact parameter resolution by Nagamine (Fig. 2-2) • Momentum Resolution by IT for forward region by YounGim (Fig 2-X) • EM Calorimeter Energy Resolution by gamma • HD Calorimeter Energy Resolution by K0L • Radiation length of the system ( by Y.Yamaguchi) • Interaction length of the detector ( by Y.Yamaguchi) • Muon efficiency vs Pt

  6. Section 2-2 • Quick Simulator Performance • dPt/Pt vs Pt (Fig 2-2-1) • dPt/Pt vs CosTheta • Impact Parameter resolution (Fig 2-2-3)

  7. QSIM Pt Resolution

  8. QSIM IP resolution

  9. Section 2-3: • Jet mass resolution by Jupiter • Using e+e-  u, d, s quark events, without ISRselected events where |CosTheta_quark| < 0.8 • Visible mass by Cheated method at 91, 350, 500 GeV ( Fig 2-3-1) • Factors which affect jet mass resolution by S.Yamamoto • Contribution of HD/EM/Tracker resolution to Jet mass (Table 2-3-1) • Contribution of Pt cut off of tracker • Study by Realistic PFA ( to be written by Yoshioka san ) • Jet mass resolution for 91 GeV is about 38%/Sqrt(E)

  10. Jet mass by Jupiter Higgs events

  11. Jet mass by QuickSim

  12. Jet mass : Qsim worse resol.

  13. Quick Simulator is tuned to reproduce Jupiter result based on cheated PFA. • Energy dependance of jet mass resolution of Quick Simulator is about same as that of Jupiter • Another parameter set of Quick Simulator is prepared for more realistic physics performance study

  14. Section 3 • Physics Performance study by Quick Simulator • Higgs process • To be presented by Yoshioka san • SUSY Process • Stau : ?? • need stau generator • Need two photon process generator • Study by Jupiter • Higgs self coupling ?? • Event generator exists, but need debugging • Another question • Beamstrahlung spectrum for ILC parameters • Crossing angle not considered

  15. Section 4 • Variation of GLD detector • Study jet mass resolution by cheated method • R_EM=1.7 and 2.3 ( R_TPC, … increased accordingly.) • B=5Tesla • Inner radius of Vertex detector and influsence to the Higgs events selection • Validation of GLD detector configuration

More Related