 |
 |
Hi Takashi, Thanks for the plots. I agree that the acceptance is sensitive to the Ecal geometry. However I can conclude from your exercise that the energy distribution is very similar to our data: you have peak near the E=Ebeam/2 what I suspected. As you remember the MC distribution is very different that moves me to the conclusion that we have problems with MC. I suspect that with any reasonable geometry we will not get sharp dip in the electron energy distribution. Never. Regards, Valery ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Takashi Maruyama" <[log in to unmask]> > To: "Valery Kubarovsky" <[log in to unmask]> > Cc: "Sho Uemura" <[log in to unmask]>, "Bradley T Yale" <[log in to unmask]>, "Maurik Holtrop" > <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask], "hps-software" <[log in to unmask]>, "Norman A. Graf" > <[log in to unmask]>, "Stepan Stepanyan" <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 5:28:41 PM > Subject: RE: [Hps-analysis] Moller Generator Fixed! (again) > Attached is Moller events with both e- in the ECal. I increased the ECal > acceptance by 1/2 crystal width in the removed crystal region; Ycut = 3.3 - > 0.65 = 2.65 cm. The energy distribution in solid red is for those Mollers with > both e- detected in ECal. Moller acceptance is sensitive to the positions and > shower development in crystals # -8 and -9. > > Takashi > > -----Original Message----- > From: Valery Kubarovsky [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 11:43 AM > To: Maruyama, Takashi > Cc: Uemura, Sho; Bradley T Yale; Maurik Holtrop; [log in to unmask]; > hps-software; Graf, Norman A.; Stepan Stepanyan > Subject: Re: [Hps-analysis] Moller Generator Fixed! (again) > > Hi Takashi, > We don't need shower simulation and real EC response to understand do we have > dip in the Moller energy distribution or bump. We cannot resolve this question > for months. You have flat distribution but without geometrical cut on both > electrons. One more step and you will get something similar to our data I > guess. > Regards, > Valery > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Takashi Maruyama" <[log in to unmask]> >> To: "Valery Kubarovsky" <[log in to unmask]> >> Cc: "Sho Uemura" <[log in to unmask]>, "Bradley T Yale" >> <[log in to unmask]>, "Maurik Holtrop" >> <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask], "hps-software" >> <[log in to unmask]>, "Norman A. Graf" >> <[log in to unmask]>, "Stepan Stepanyan" <[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 1:45:01 PM >> Subject: Re: [Hps-analysis] Moller Generator Fixed! (again) > >> Hi Valery, >> >> My cut is simple geometrical cut: the crystal edge is 2 cm from the >> beam, and the removed crystal edge is 2+1.3 = 3.3 cm. No shower >> simulation is made. What I can conclude with my fast tracking is that >> I don’t see any problem in the Moller events that Brad generated at >> the stdhep level. Real ECal response and trigger should be answered by SLIC. >> These are beyond my fast tracking. >> >> Takashi >>> On May 14, 2016, at 10:05 AM, Valery Kubarovsky <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Takashi, >>> Thanks for the prompt reply. So you are saying that the we have no >>> acceptance for Moller electrons at all. >>> Your conclusion is in contradiction with Geant MC and our data, I believe. >>> It will be interesting to understand the reason. >>> - Did you really apply the geometrical cut or made your conclusion >>> based on your first picture by eye? Picture N2 shows that 1.15 GeV >>> electrons has X=(-10,-15)cm spread. >>> - The solid line is just the edge of the crystals at the face of the >>> calorimeter, correct? >>> - What if we will apply the crystal's edge cut at the back of the >>> calorimeter, not at the front face? >>> - We have 30 mrad angle for beam particles on our target. Do you have >>> it in your fast MC? >>> - Can you make your plots for the electrons that have hit in the calorimeter? >>> >>> Thanks again, >>> Valery >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Takashi Maruyama" <[log in to unmask]> >>>> To: "Valery Kubarovsky" <[log in to unmask]> >>>> Cc: "Sho Uemura" <[log in to unmask]>, "Bradley T Yale" >>>> <[log in to unmask]>, "Maurik Holtrop" >>>> <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask], "hps-software" >>>> <[log in to unmask]>, "Norman A. Graf" >>>> <[log in to unmask]> >>>> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 6:13:31 PM >>>> Subject: RE: [Hps-analysis] Moller Generator Fixed! (again) >>> >>>> Hi Valery, >>>> >>>> Attached is the distributions you requested. These are Brad's EGS5 >>>> generated Mollers. If I use the solid lines to represent the crystal >>>> edges, one of the Moller electrons always falls in this removed >>>> crystal area; ie both e-'s cannot be detected by ECal. >>>> >>>> Takashi >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Valery Kubarovsky [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >>>> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 12:08 PM >>>> To: Maruyama, Takashi >>>> Cc: Uemura, Sho; Bradley T Yale; Maurik Holtrop; >>>> [log in to unmask]; hps-software; Graf, Norman A. >>>> Subject: Re: [Hps-analysis] Moller Generator Fixed! (again) >>>> >>>> Hi Takashi, >>>> >>>> Can you make a several plots from your fast MC: >>>> >>>> 1. Y vs X of the tracks at the face-off the calorimeter: >>>> 2. The same plot when both of tracks are detected by Ecal 3. The >>>> energy distribution of the electrons for the events when both tracks detected by >>>> Ecal. >>>> >>>> I think that it is not very difficult for you. >>>> The main question to resolve will get the dip in the energy >>>> distribution or bump at the E=Ebeam/2. >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance, >>>> Valery >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Takashi Maruyama" <[log in to unmask]> >>>>> To: "Sho Uemura" <[log in to unmask]>, "Bradley T Yale" >>>>> <[log in to unmask]> >>>>> Cc: "Maurik Holtrop" <[log in to unmask]>, >>>>> [log in to unmask], "hps-software" <[log in to unmask]>, "Valery >>>>> Kubarovsky" >>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, "Norman A. Graf" <[log in to unmask]> >>>>> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 1:28:29 PM >>>>> Subject: RE: [Hps-analysis] Moller Generator Fixed! (again) >>>> >>>>> Thanks, Sho. I was going to say exactly the same thing. Attached is >>>>> Moller distribution at layer 6 in my fast tracking using Brad's >>>>> Moller events. Moller problem is somewhere else. >>>>> Takashi >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: [log in to unmask] >>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sho Uemura >>>>> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 9:00 AM >>>>> To: Bradley T Yale >>>>> Cc: Maurik Holtrop; [log in to unmask]; hps-software; Valeri >>>>> Koubarovski; Graf, Norman A. >>>>> Subject: Re: [Hps-analysis] Moller Generator Fixed! (again) >>>>> >>>>> By the usual definition of theta_y (angle of elevation from the xz >>>>> plane), the direction cosine cos(b) (where b is the angle of >>>>> inclination from the >>>>> y-axis) exactly equals sin(theta_y). >>>>> >>>>> What I meant to say is that in small angle, sin(theta_y)~=theta_y. >>>>> The relation >>>>> sin(theta)sin(phi)=sin(theta_y) is exact. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 13 May 2016, Bradley T Yale wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Even if theta is a small angle, it is multiplied by sin(phi), where phi is not. >>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>> From: [log in to unmask] >>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Sho Uemura >>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 11:00:46 AM >>>>>> To: Maurik Holtrop >>>>>> Cc: Bradley T Yale; [log in to unmask]; HPS Software; Valeri >>>>>> Koubarovski; Norman A. Graf >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Hps-analysis] Moller Generator Fixed! (again) >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> ################################################################## >>>>>> ### >>>>>> # >>>>>> ## >>>>>> 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