<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<tt>Hi Elton,<br>
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.<br>
The main ingredients are: <br>
<br>
- For the data, a single run only (1435, ~ 9 h) was analyzed. <br>
- 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 <br>
events can be found, for example, in <br>
</tt><br>
<tt><cite class="_Rm">edelweiss.in2p3.fr/Publications/Docs/PhDThesis_Kluck2013.pdf</cite><br>
<br>
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). <br>
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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
<br>
Andrea <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</tt>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03/03/2017 22:08, Elton Smith wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:58B9DB6B.4010203@jlab.org" type="cite">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?)
<br>
<br>
Thanks, Elton.
<br>
<br>
Elton Smith
<br>
Jefferson Lab MS 12H3
<br>
12000 Jefferson Ave STE 4
<br>
Newport News, VA 23606
<br>
(757)269-7625
<br>
(757)269-6331 fax
<br>
<br>
On 3/3/17 11:24 AM, Marco Battaglieri wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Dear Andrea,
<br>
the comparison of the 16 channels of the calorimeter looks
wonderful!!
<br>
Whit this result in hands we can really think to write a paper
about the prototype including the comparison withthe MC.
<br>
What about the 'old' crystal? do you have any results?
<br>
Cheers
<br>
Marco
<br>
<br>
Andrea Celentano wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Dear all,
<br>
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.
<br>
Main issues that have been fixed in MC are:
<br>
<br>
1) Distribution of primary cosmic rays and their normalization
- according to the proper definition of "flux" as "fluence
differential wrt time"
<br>
2) Spread induced in the charge collection due to the finite
crystals attenuation length.
<br>
<br>
I'll talk more about these results next Tuesday meeting, but
I'd like to share this good result with you.
<br>
<br>
Bests
<br>
Andrea
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
BDXlist mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:BDXlist@jlab.org">BDXlist@jlab.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/bdxlist">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/bdxlist</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
BDXlist mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:BDXlist@jlab.org">BDXlist@jlab.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/bdxlist">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/bdxlist</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
BDXlist mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:BDXlist@jlab.org">BDXlist@jlab.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/bdxlist">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/bdxlist</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>