\documentclass[presentation]{beamer}
%\documentclass[presentation,aspectratio=169]{beamer}
% Replacing 'presentation' with 'handout' in the above line
% will produce 4 slides per page.
% The hyperref option makes it possible to include hyperlinks.

\mode<presentation> {
    \usetheme{Boadilla}
    \setbeamercovered{transparent}
}

\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
\usepackage{times}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
%\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{amsmath}

\mode<handout>{
    \usepackage{pgfpages}
    \pgfpagesuselayout{4 on 1}[letterpaper,landscape,border shrink=5mm]
\setbeamercolor{background canvas}{bg=black!10} }

\setbeamertemplate{footline}
{
    \leavevmode%
    \hbox{%
        \begin{beamercolorbox}[wd=.333333\paperwidth,ht=2.25ex,dp=1ex,center]{author
            in head/foot}%
            \usebeamerfont{author in head/ foot}\insertshortauthor%&\approx& (\insertshorti
        \end{beamercolorbox}%
        \begin{beamercolorbox}[wd=.333333\paperwidth,ht=2.25ex,dp=1ex,center]{title
            in head/foot}%
            \usebeamerfont{title in head/foot}\insertshorttitle
        \end{beamercolorbox}%
        \begin{beamercolorbox}[wd=.333333\paperwidth,ht=2.25ex,dp=1ex,right]{date in
            head/foot}%
            \usebeamerfont{date in head/foot}\insertshortdate\hspace*{2em}
            \insertframenumber / \inserttotalframenumber\hspace*{2ex}
    \end{beamercolorbox}}%
    \vskip0pt%
}

%gets rid of bottom navigation bars
%\setbeamertemplate{footline}[frame number]{}

%gets rid of bottom navigation symbols
%\setbeamertemplate{navigation symbols}{}

%gets rid of footer
%will override 'frame number' instruction above
%comment out to revert to previous/default definitions
%\setbeamertemplate{footline}{}

\newcommand{\backupbegin}{
    \newcounter{framenumberappendix}
    \setcounter{framenumberappendix}{\value{framenumber}}
}
\newcommand{\backupend}{
    \addtocounter{framenumberappendix}{-\value{framenumber}}
    \addtocounter{framenumber}{\value{framenumberappendix}} 
}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%\title[GEANT4/EGS5]{GEANT4/EGS5}

\title[E906/SeaQuest]{Direct Measurement of Initial-State Energy Loss in Cold Nuclear Matter at Fermilab E906/SeaQuest}

\author[Sho Uemura]{Sho Uemura\\Los Alamos National Laboratory\\SeaQuest Collaboration}
%\institute{bumming around}
\date[January 7, 2019]

%\titlegraphic{
%\includegraphics[height=0.1\textheight]{SLAC_Logo}\hspace*{4.75cm}~
%\includegraphics[height=0.1\textheight]{partner_logo_v2}
%}

\begin{document}

%\setcounter{framenumber}{2} 
\begin{frame}
    \titlepage
\end{frame}

%E772/E866 interpretation:
%https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0105195.pdf
%E906 preliminary interpretation (Arleo):
%https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.05120.pdf
%E906 projections (Vitev):
%https://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.3708.pdf

%NIM paper:
%https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.09990.pdf



%motivation: benchmark for QGP hot nuclear matter

%Drell-Yan

%compare to SIDIS: initial vs. final state, hadronization

%shadowing vs. energy loss

%kinematic ranges

%apparatus

%schedule

%other measurements, E1039

%backgrounds

\begin{frame}{Jet quenching and cold nuclear matter}
    \begin{columns}
        \column{0.65\textwidth}
        \begin{itemize}
            \item Jet quenching in heavy-ion collisions is a key probe of the QGP
            \item $R_{AA}$ shows clear suppression in $A+A$ relative to $p+p$, attributed to parton energy loss in final-state interaction
            \item But cold nuclear matter effects also contribute:
                \begin{itemize}
                    \item Nuclear modification of PDFs
                    \item Parton energy loss in initial-state interaction
                \end{itemize}
            %\item Cold nuclear matter is studied in $p+A$, $d+A$ at RHIC/LHC, and modification is seen
            \item $p+A$, $d+A$ at RHIC/LHC are used to benchmark CNM effects
                \begin{itemize}
                    \item We see modification relative to $p+p$: what is the cause?
                \end{itemize}
            %\item Fixed-target experiments (SIDIS, Drell-Yan) have unique power in isolating effects
                %\item $p+A$ collisions also show modification relative to $p+p$: cold nuclear matter effect
                %\begin{itemize}
                %\item What is it?
                %\end{itemize}
        \end{itemize}
        %\begin{center}
        %\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{emcal_location}
        %\end{center}
        \column{0.3\textwidth}
        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{dau_150904657}

        \tiny{Adare et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 122301 (2016)}
    \end{columns}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Initial-state energy loss}
    \begin{columns}
        \column{0.65\textwidth}
        \begin{itemize}
            \item Models suggest significant radiative energy loss in CNM, initial-state energy loss in particular
            \item Energy loss is certainly not the whole story in cold nuclear matter, but we must understand it
                \begin{itemize}
                    \item CNM energy loss is a crucial benchmark for QGP measurements
                    \item Fixed-target experiments (SIDIS, Drell-Yan) have unique power in isolating effects
                \end{itemize}
                %\item Initial-state and final-state energy loss have different  Vitev, Phys.Rev. C75, 064906 (2007)
        \end{itemize}
        %\begin{center}
        %\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{emcal_location}
        %\end{center}
        \column{0.35\textwidth}
        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{cnm_eloss}

        \tiny{Vitev, Phys.Rev. C75, 064906 (2007)}
    \end{columns}
\end{frame}

%\begin{frame}{Energy loss in fixed-target experiments}
%\begin{columns}
%\column{0.65\textwidth}
%\begin{itemize}
%\item Fixed target SIDIS and Drell-Yan experiments are sensitive to energy loss
%\item SIDIS ($e+A$): final-state energy loss followed by hadronization
%\item Drell-Yan ($p+A$): clean channel for initial-state energy loss
%\end{itemize}
%%\begin{center}
%%\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{emcal_location}
%%\end{center}
%\column{0.35\textwidth}
%%\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{phenix_emcal}
%\end{columns}
%\end{frame}
%
%\begin{frame}{Energy loss measurement in SIDIS}
%\begin{columns}
%\column{0.65\textwidth}
%\begin{itemize}
%\item Fixed target SIDIS and Drell-Yan experiments are sensitive to energy loss
%\item SIDIS ($e+A$): final-state energy loss
%\item Drell-Yan ($p+A$): initial-state energy loss
%\end{itemize}
%%\begin{center}
%%\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{emcal_location}
%%\end{center}
%\column{0.35\textwidth}
%%\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{phenix_emcal}
%\end{columns}
%\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Energy loss measurement with Drell-Yan}
    \begin{columns}
        \column{0.65\textwidth}
        \begin{itemize}
            \item Quark (antiquark) in beam proton annhilates with antiquark (quark) in target nucleus
                \begin{itemize}
                    \item Fixed-target spectrometer (large $x_{beam}$) selects beam valence quark and target sea antiquark
                \end{itemize}
            \item Beam quark is subject to initial-state energy loss; dimuon final state interacts minimally with medium (EM interaction, much weaker than strong interaction)
            \item Different models of initial-state energy loss predict different nuclear dependence:
                \begin{itemize}
                    \item Gavin and Milana: $\Delta x_{beam} = -\kappa_1x_{beam}A^{1/3}$
                    \item Brodsky and Hoyer: $\Delta x_{beam} = -\frac{\kappa_2}{s}A^{1/3}$
                    \item Baier et al: $\Delta x_{beam} = -\frac{\kappa_3}{s}A^{2/3}$
                \end{itemize}
        \end{itemize}
        %\begin{center}
        %\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{emcal_location}
        %\end{center}
        \column{0.35\textwidth}
        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{targetbeam}

        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{dy_energyloss}
    \end{columns}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Energy loss measurement with Drell-Yan}
    \begin{columns}
        \column{0.65\textwidth}
        \begin{itemize}
            \item Measure DY rate with different nuclear targets: D or C target with negligible energy loss (and minimal isospin effects), and a range of heavier targets
            \item The beam parton loses energy, shifting $x_{beam}$: measurable as nuclear modification $R_{pA}=\frac{\sigma^{pA}}{A\sigma^{pD}}$
                \begin{itemize}
                    \item Expect steeply falling $R_{pA}$ at large $x_{beam}$ or $x_F$
                \end{itemize}
        \end{itemize}
        %\begin{center}
        %\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{emcal_location}
        %\end{center}
        \column{0.35\textwidth}
        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{rpa}
    \end{columns}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Previous DY measurement: E772/E866}
    \begin{columns}
        \column{0.65\textwidth}
        \begin{itemize}
            \item Measured $R_{pA}(x_F)$ using Be, Fe, W targets and the 800 GeV Tevatron proton beam, and observed significant nuclear modification
            \item Drell-Yan acceptance covered $x_{beam} \in [0.21, 0.95]$, $x_{target} \in [0.01, 0.12]$
                \begin{itemize}
                    \item Small $x_{target}$ $\to$ substantial shadowing in the target nuclear PDF
                \end{itemize}
            \item Interpretations of the result differ:
                \begin{itemize}
                    \item All shadowing, no measurable energy loss: Vasiliev et al., PRL 83 (1999)
                    \item Different shadowing model shows significant energy loss: Johnson et al., PRC 65 025203 (2002)
                \end{itemize}
            \item A lower beam energy would access larger $x_{target}$ and avoid shadowing
        \end{itemize}
        %\begin{center}
        %\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{shadowing.png}
        %\end{center}
        \column{0.35\textwidth}
        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{e866_ambiguity_10103708}

        \tiny{Neufeld et al., Phys. Lett. B 704 (2011) 590}
    \end{columns}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{The E906/SeaQuest experiment}
    \begin{columns}
        \column{0.4\textwidth}
        \begin{itemize}
            \item Fixed-target muon spectrometer, 120 GeV Main Injector proton beam
                %\item Primary program: Drell-Yan measurements of sea quark distributions
                %\begin{itemize}
                %\item E906 (unpolarized targets, 2012--2017), E1039 (polarized targets, 2019--2020)
                %\end{itemize}
                %\item Measurement of the nucleon sea quark distribution using Drell-Yan% ($q\bar{q}\to \mu^+\mu^-$)
            \item Thin ($\sim$10\%$\lambda_I$) rotating targets: LH2, LD2, C, Fe, W
            \item Iron-filled dipole magnet focuses muons and absorbs everything else
            \item Drift chambers for tracking, scintillator hodoscopes for trigger
        \end{itemize}
        %\begin{center}
        %\end{center}
        \column{0.6\textwidth}
        \begin{flushright}
            \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{seaquest_setup}
            \tiny{arXiv:1706.09990}
        \end{flushright}
    \end{columns}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Other SeaQuest programs}
    \begin{columns}
        \column{0.7\textwidth}
        \begin{itemize}
            \item Flavor asymmetry of sea quarks: extend E866/NuSea measurement to larger $x$ (other E906 focus)
            \item Sea quark Sivers function, using polarized target (E1039, coming soon!)
            \item Dark photon search: parasitic search for BSM physics (started during E906 and will continue)
                %\begin{itemize}
                %\item E906 (unpolarized targets, 2012--2017), E1039 (polarized targets, 2019--2020)
                %\end{itemize}
                %\item Measurement of the nucleon sea quark distribution using Drell-Yan% ($q\bar{q}\to \mu^+\mu^-$)
                %\item Thin ($\sim$10\%$\lambda_I$) rotating targets: LH2, LD2, C, Fe, W
                %\item Iron-filled dipole magnet serves as beam dump; second dipole magnet is used for momentum measurement
                %\item Drift chambers for tracking, scintillator hodoscopes for trigger
        \end{itemize}
        \begin{center}
            \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{emcal_location}
        \end{center}
        \column{0.3\textwidth}
        \begin{flushright}
            \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{dbarubar}


            \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{e1039_ssa}
        \end{flushright}
    \end{columns}
\end{frame}

%other programs: flavor asymmetry
\begin{frame}{Expectations for E906}
    \begin{columns}
        \column{0.55\textwidth}
        \begin{itemize}
            \item Drell-Yan acceptance covers $x_{beam} \in [0.4, 0.9]$, $x_{target} \in [0.1, 0.4]$
            \item Avoids the shadowing region of the nuclear PDFs: nuclear dependence is clearly due to energy loss
            \item $x_{beam}$ range of 50--100 GeV is relevant to parton energies at RHIC and LHC
        \end{itemize}
        \column{0.45\textwidth}
        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{e906_prediction_10103708}

        \tiny{Neufeld et al., Phys. Lett. B 704 (2011) 590}
    \end{columns}
    \begin{center}
        \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{shadowing.png}
    \end{center}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{E906 timeline}
    \begin{itemize}
        \item First beam in 2012, first production-quality data in 2014
        \item Steady detector and beamline improvements
        \item Data taking ended July 2017
            \begin{itemize}
                \item Transitioning to E1039, with the same spectrometer but new polarized target
            \end{itemize}
    \end{itemize}
    \begin{center}
        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{e906_timeline}
    \end{center}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Analysis}
    \begin{columns}
        \column{0.6\textwidth}
        \begin{itemize}
            \item Our observable is the Drell-Yan cross-section $\sigma^{pA}_{DY}(x_F)$ for each target
                \begin{itemize}
                        %\item Bin the data in $x_F$ and use mass fits to extract charmonia, coincidence background, Drell-Yan
                    \item Cuts reject dimuons from the beam dump
                    \item Correct for detector and reconstruction efficiencies
                    \item Use mass cuts and fits to isolate Drell-Yan rate from charmonia and coincidence background
                \end{itemize}
                %\item Challenges:
                %\begin{itemize}
                %\item Rate dependence
                %\item Efficiency
                %\item Coincidence background
                %\end{itemize}
        \end{itemize}
        %\begin{center}
        %\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{shadowing.png}
        %\end{center}
        \column{0.4\textwidth}
        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{dimuon_z}

        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{dimuon_mass}
    \end{columns}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Coincidence background}
    %\begin{columns}
    %\column{0.65\textwidth}
    \begin{itemize}
        \item Random coincidences share the Drell-Yan kinematic range
        \item Simulate coincidences using event mixing: take $\mu^-$ and $\mu^+$ from different events (``mixed data'')
        \item What is the correct normalization of the mixed data?
            \begin{itemize}
                \item Insufficient statistics in like-sign dimuon data
            \end{itemize}
        \item Does the mixed data accurately reflect the coincidence background?
    \end{itemize}
    \begin{center}
        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{combinatorial_background}
    \end{center}
    %\column{0.35\textwidth}
    %\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{e906_prediction_10103708}
    %\end{columns}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Rate dependence}
    %\begin{columns}
    %\column{0.65\textwidth}
    \begin{itemize}
        \item Main Injector shows strong bunch-by-bunch intensity variations: beam intensity monitor vetoes high-intensity buckets and records event-by-event intensity
        \item At high occupancies, we lose chamber hit efficiency and track reconstruction efficiency
            \begin{itemize}
                \item We embed simulated Drell-Yan events in random-triggered data events to measure the intensity-dependent efficiency
            \end{itemize}
        \item There should be no coincidence background at zero intensity; coincidence ``cross-section'' should scale with intensity
            \begin{itemize}
                \item We can use this directly (extrapolate to zero intensity) to extract the rate of true dimuons, but at a statistical penalty
                \item We can extract the coincidence background, and use it to check and normalize the mixed data
            \end{itemize}
            %\item Track reconstruction efficiency is much worse for high-intensity events
            %\item Coincidence background increases with intensity
            %\item How do we correct for these effects?
    \end{itemize}
    %\begin{center}
    %\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{shadowing.png}
    %\end{center}
    %\column{0.35\textwidth}
    %\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{e906_prediction_10103708}
    %\end{columns}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Extrapolation to zero intensity}
    \begin{columns}
        \column{0.6\textwidth}
        \begin{itemize}
            \item We could use intensity extrapolation to get the cross-sections for each target, and take ratios
            \item Since what we really want is a ratio of two cross-sections, we can extrapolate the ratio instead
                \begin{itemize}
                    \item Avoid systematic effects
                \end{itemize}
            \item Working on understanding the correct functional form and treatment of errors
        \end{itemize}
        %\begin{center}
        %\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{shadowing.png}
        %\end{center}
        \column{0.4\textwidth}
        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ratio_extrapolation}
    \end{columns}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Extraction of coincidence background}
    \begin{columns}
        \column{0.6\textwidth}
        \begin{itemize}
            \item Correct for luminosity and efficiencies, then a linear fit vs. intensity gives us both the true dimuon and coincidence background distributions
            \item Validating this technique:
                \begin{itemize}
                    \item Comparing coincidence background to mixed data
                    \item Comparing true dimuon distribution to charmonia and DY Monte Carlo
                \end{itemize}
        \end{itemize}
        %\begin{center}
        %\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{shadowing.png}
        %\end{center}
        \column{0.4\textwidth}
        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{intensityfitresults}
    \end{columns}
\end{frame}

%\begin{frame}{Analysis status and plans}
%\begin{columns}
%\column{\textwidth}
%\begin{itemize}
%\item Alignment and reconstruction: done
%\item Detector efficiency: done
%\item Trigger performance: in progress
%\item Next steps:
%\begin{itemize}
%\item Look for signal
%\item Understand our expected signal: update signal yields using as-built trigger geometry
%\end{itemize}
%\end{itemize}
%\begin{center}
%\hspace{0.1\textwidth}
%\end{center}
%\end{columns}
%\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{The outlook for 2019}
    %\begin{columns}
    %\column{0.65\textwidth}
    \begin{itemize}
        \item E906 energy loss analysis is making good progress on the key analysis issues; we expect a result this year
        \item E1039 will take first beam this year
            \begin{itemize}
                \item Crucial test of sea quark orbital angular momentum
                \item Dark photon program continues, with first physics data for a world-leading BSM search
                \item Collaborators welcome!
            \end{itemize}
    \end{itemize}
    \begin{center}
        \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{e1039_target}
    \end{center}
    %\column{0.35\textwidth}
    %\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{e1039_target}

    %\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Visible_Aprime_Future}
    %\tiny{arXiv:1804.00661}
    %\end{columns}
\end{frame}


% Detector efficiency
% Trigger efficiency?
% EMCal


%\begin{frame}{Fix vertex fit}
%\begin{columns}
%\column{0.6\textwidth}
%\begin{itemize}
%\item The resolution of the reconstructed mass should be independent of Z but is worse for displaced vertices.
%\end{itemize}
%\begin{center}
%\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mass_shift_40}
%\end{center}
%\column{0.4\textwidth}
%\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,page=4]{acceptance_40}
%\end{columns}
%\end{frame}

\end{document}