 |
 |
The pulser/random-trigger skim was run in pass1. On Sep 29, 2015, at 14:18, Graham, Mathew Thomas <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > We should add a skim on randoms as well…Pelle has the steering file for this. > >> On Sep 28, 2015, at 3:46 PM, Nathan Baltzell <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> And for completeness, the pulser skim is about 0.002. >> >> Note in all these skims we ought to keep all EPICS banks (very small >> increase on file size, may be useful later). The Pulser and FEE skims >> already do that with: if (EpicsData.read(event) != null) keepEvent; >> >> -Nathan >> >> >> On Sep 28, 2015, at 12:49 PM, "Graf, Norman A." <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> Hay Matt, >>> I just ran the following skimmers over 5772.0 and here are >>> the results: >>> >>> Moller : .004 >>> V0 : .018 >>> FEE : .071 >>> >>> So about a 10% overhead on the output size. >>> >>> Norman >>> >>> From: Graham, Mathew Thomas >>> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 6:37 AM >>> To: Graf, Norman A. >>> Cc: hps-software; [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: Event skimming & pass 2.1 >>> >>> Hi Norman and everyone else, >>> >>> I agree that this is a good idea. What are the cuts you used for this skim? >>> >>> I think we decided last week that we’ll need to run a “pass 2.1” because the momentum scale is screwed for vertexed particles now that we are using the full field map. As we discussed, the right thing to do is to swim the tracks (no problem) and their covariance (not coded yet) back to ~ the target (or a better approximation of where the vertex is) using the full b-field and then run vertexing. The quick thing to do is to just ignore the varying b-field as we were before. >>> >>> I propose that we go through run 5772 (the magic run) with this quick fix as well as with the fixes to the DSTs, the DQM plots, and with all skims (including the v0 skim). Then we can re-run the whole pass if we want to when we get the covariance propagation working. >>> >>> Hay or neigh? >>> >>> mg >>> >>> >>>> On Sep 27, 2015, at 10:18 PM, Graf, Norman A. <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello All, >>>> I'd like to propose that we run the V0CandidateFilter >>>> the next time we make a pass over the data. Here >>>> are the statistics running over the pass2 reconstruction >>>> of the first partition of Run 5772: >>>> >>>> V0CandidateFilter Summary: >>>> events processed = 251823 >>>> events passed = 4201 >>>> rejection = 0.016682352287122303 >>>> >>>> Please let me know if you have any questions or need >>>> any additional information. >>>> Thanks, >>>> Norman >>>> >>>> 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 >> > ######################################################################## 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