HPS-SOFTWARE Archives

Software for the Heavy Photon Search Experiment

HPS-SOFTWARE@LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Sho Uemura <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Software for the Heavy Photon Search Experiment <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 13 May 2016 08:00:46 -0700
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (59 lines)
I don't understand - I thought this cut was intended as a theta_y cut (>10 
mrad above or below the beam plane,so we only keep particles that might 
hit a detector), and does v(np) not correctly describe theta_y?

So I buy that this explains the difference in the envelope of your MC 
truth distribution from theory (the U shape) but not that this has 
anything to do with the gap, or any data-MC discrepancy seen after 
readout.

On Fri, 13 May 2016, Maurik Holtrop wrote:

> Hi Bradley,
>
> That is great investigative work. You should now indeed check the other EGS5 generators for similar issues. As we discussed yesterday, there may be an issue with the background events for tridents.
>
> Can you please mention (advertise) this new result at the analysis meeting today?
>
> Best,
> 	Maurik
>
>
>> On May 13, 2016, at 3:25 AM, Bradley T Yale <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> I think I found the real problem with how the Moller generator was initially set up.
>> This one affects the generated distribution a LOT more than the RNG precision probably did, and explains the remaining strangeness in the generated distribution.
>>
>> Looking at the egs5 Moller procedure, the angular cut was defined as:
>>
>> abs(v(np)) > 0.010 radians
>>
>> where v(np) is supposed to be theta.
>> However, the variables u, v, and w in egs are actually directional cosines, p_x = p*u,   p_y = p*v,   and   p_z = p*w.
>>
>> So this means that in reality, the generator was saving Moller events such that
>> abs [ sin(theta)*sin(phi) ] > 0.010
>>
>> which has a periodic nature to it. Plot this equation for some value of phi (or just think about it) and you'll see what was likely making these strange hills and gaps in the energy distribution - full-wave rectified Mollers!
>>
>> The scattered beam simulation does correctly define theta though:
>> sqrt[ u^2 + v^2 ]
>>
>> I made a moller_v3 procedure with this correction (still with a >10 mrad cut), and the comparison between before and after is shown.
>> The generated events now agree with the calculated cross section (XS curve is shown on the 'bad' plot), and no apparent missing events.
>>
>> These will be run through recon to see if we can finally get good Moller agreement with data.
>> I'm also going to try changing the scattered beam energy cut shown in the software meeting to see if it fixes Tim's phi vs. energy discrepancy.
>> -Brad
>> <BadMollers.png><2pt3_mol_v3_moller_E.png>_______________________________________________
>> Hps-analysis mailing list
>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis <https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis>
>

########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list

To unsubscribe from the HPS-SOFTWARE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=HPS-SOFTWARE&A=1

ATOM RSS1 RSS2