 |
 |
Hi Luca, nice. Some simple questions to get up to speed on your study below. Sorry if this was discussed in some meeting last week, I’ve been away until this week. The “uncalibrated” and “simulation” has a title "GTP cluster" but the calibrated plot say “IC Cluster”. Is the "GTP cluster" using the 3x3 window energy used in the trigger selection and “IC cluster” the relatively new (real) clustering algorithm recently added to the reconstruction? If so, do we save the energy that was used in the trigger decision in the evio file or is this something you recompute offline? If you recompute, did we verify that we can recompute the trigger decision with this implementation? If the clustering algorithms are different in the calibrated and uncalibrated plots, is there a reason for this? I assume that you are trying to select Coulomb scattered beam electrons at full beam energy? What was the event selection? What part of the ECal is shown in these plots? Both top and bottom? There seems to be a cutoff at exactly 1GeV (1.5GeV) in uncalibrated data (simulation). Is that an artificial cut you apply? Can you explain a little more how the "calibration point” is defined and also what you mean exactly with calibrated? I assumed that this was after applying a correction to each crystal (“gain calibration”) and without a sampling fraction correction but I’m a little confused what the "calibration point" mean in this context... The peak in simulation is close the full beam energy by construction. What was the peak position in simulation without scaling? If I understand what you are plotting there should be a sampling fraction that is not taken into account here. To compare with your calibrated cluster in data, shouldn’t the scaling be to 1.92*(sampling fraction) i.e. some ~20% lower? Also, it looks like the seed hit energy of the simulation is much broader than the data. Is that due to some effect of the scaling from 2.2 to 1.92 or some other reason? Thanks! /Pelle On Jan 10, 2015, at 3:37 PM, Luca Colaneri <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: No, as setting points I've used the points obtained from 2.2 GeV beam simulations and proportionally scaled to 1.9. It is good enough to test and let me put up all the machinery for the calibration. The red vertical line in central and left histrgrams is the calibration point. L. Il 09/01/2015 20:39, Stepan Stepanyan ha scritto: Luca, Is your simulation with 1.92 GeV electrons. I am trying to understand why peak for correct distribution is at ~1.7 GeV while simulation is at 1.95 GeV. Stepan On 1/9/15 12:34 PM, Luca Colaneri wrote: There is a lot more to do, this is very very preliminary, but it is happening... Cheers! Luca -- PhD Student, Università degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata INFN sez. Roma2 Via della Ricerca Scientifica 1, 00133 Rome, Italy +39 0672594562 ######################################################################## 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 ######################################################################## 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