[BDXlist] Catania measurements: Data vs MC comparison

[Elton Smith]

Hi Andrea,

Great to hear. I will not be available next Tuesday, so talk to you a 
week later.  Elton.

On 3/3/17 5:29 PM, Andrea Celentano wrote:
> Hi Elton,
> I was quite surprised too to see the very good agreement. However, 
> there are no "ad-hoc" or "tricky" solutions here to reproduce the 
> absolute rate.
>  The main ingredients are:
>
> - For the data, a single run only (1435, ~ 9 h) was analyzed.
> - For the MC, the parametrization of the cosmic rays flux is from 
> 1509.06176. This give the absolute flux of cosmic rays. The 
> parametrization was already in the code, but events were not generated 
> properly. A full description on how the flux should be used to generate
> events can be found, for example, in
>
> edelweiss.in2p3.fr/Publications/Docs/PhDThesis_Kluck2013.pdf
>
> see in particular Sec 5.3. I have repeated all the calculations and I 
> implemented the procedure in the code. I plan to describe this at next 
> BDX meeting (or the week after).
> Also note that in this thesis, even if in a different contest, a data 
> vs MC comparison for cosmic-rays is also shown (see Fig. 6.2). The 
> situation here is very different from BDX (and much more complicate: 
> here they simulate the muons-induced neutrons within the Modane 
> undeground cavern), and the result is again very good. (Note that here 
> they base the MC on an ad-hoc measurement of the muon flux out of the 
> Modane cavern, but without any annual effect included).
>
> I think that there may be factors at the 10% level that may still be 
> hided under the error bars or that, just by chance, somehow compensate.
>
> I am more than happy to share all the codes I used to anyone who's 
> interested in repeating the analysis (simulation, reconstruction, 
> analysis): it is always good to have multiple checks! Meanwhile I plan 
> to analyze further data, and to also compare different observable 
> (first, the "all-events" energy deposition in each crystal of the 
> matrix as done for the old one).
>
> Cheers
>
> Andrea
>
>
>
> On 03/03/2017 22:08, Elton Smith wrote:
>> Hi Andrea, I agree with Marco, the comparison looks amazingly good 
>> (too good?). Especially I am impressed by the absolute normalization. 
>> I did not think that the cosmic-ray rates could be taken to be better 
>> than about 10%, unless variations due to longitude, etc were taken 
>> into account. (Are there seasonal/location variations?)
>>
>> Thanks, Elton.
>>
>> Elton Smith
>> Jefferson Lab MS 12H3
>> 12000 Jefferson Ave STE 4
>> Newport News, VA 23606
>> (757)269-7625
>> (757)269-6331 fax
>>
>> On 3/3/17 11:24 AM, Marco Battaglieri wrote:
>>> Dear Andrea,
>>> the comparison of the 16 channels of the calorimeter looks wonderful!!
>>> Whit this result in hands we can really think to write a paper about 
>>> the prototype  including the comparison withthe  MC.
>>> What about the 'old' crystal? do you have any results?
>>> Cheers
>>> Marco
>>>
>>> Andrea Celentano wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> just want to share with you the newest result from Catania Data vs 
>>>> MC comparison: the comparison has been made by selecting events 
>>>> with signals from 4 crystals in a column in the matrix above 
>>>> threshold (to select vertical cosmic rays): note that in data 
>>>> (blue) and mc (Red) histograms the scale is absolute (Hz/MeV), i.e. 
>>>> no "ad-hoc" normalization has been used.
>>>> Main issues that have been fixed in MC are:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Distribution of primary cosmic rays and their normalization - 
>>>> according to the proper definition of "flux" as "fluence 
>>>> differential wrt time"
>>>> 2) Spread induced in the charge collection due to the finite 
>>>> crystals attenuation length.
>>>>
>>>> I'll talk more about these results next Tuesday meeting, but I'd 
>>>> like to share this good result with you.
>>>>
>>>> Bests
>>>> Andrea
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> BDXlist mailing list
>>>> BDXlist at jlab.org
>>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/bdxlist
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> BDXlist mailing list
>>> BDXlist at jlab.org
>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/bdxlist
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> BDXlist mailing list
>> BDXlist at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/bdxlist
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BDXlist mailing list
> BDXlist at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/bdxlist