 |
 |
If you used the individual files in /u/group/hps/users/byale/mol_v2/2pt3/ or /mss/hallb/hps/production/stdhep/mollers/2pt3/ then these do not have the 30.5 mrad offset applied yet. So the actual positions will be shifted slightly to the left. Try /u/group/hps/users/byale/mol_v2/2pt3/rot_molv2_MERGED.stdhep These are the same 10 files with the rotation. Brad ________________________________________ From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Maruyama, Takashi <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 6:13:31 PM To: 'Valery Kubarovsky' 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 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 ######################################################################## 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