[Halld-cal] Fwd: updated study of Fcal response in MC

Richard Jones richard.t.jones at uconn.edu
Wed Mar 13 17:50:00 EDT 2019 

Hello Elton,

Yes, and when I saw the evidence for this that was when I added a separate
tag in the hddm output from the simulations (both of them) containing this
information. What I just learned from Sean is that this additional tag for
the FCal lucite light yield is presently being ignored in mcsmear.

-Richard J.

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 4:14 PM Elton Smith <elton at jlab.org> wrote:

> Hi Richard,
> We have learned in studies for CPP that when charged tracks pass through
> the light guide (immediately in front of the PMT) they can produce
> sufficient light to make a difference in the response to pions. So even
> though on the surface this does not seem like an important effect, it
> can make a difference for mininum ionizing hadrons.
>
> 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 3/13/19 1:44 PM, Richard Jones wrote:
> > Ilya,
> >
> > We just learned that the combination of lead glass and lucite
> > contributions to the light yield is a particularly simple one, with
> > the coefficients of the lucite part being zero.
> >
> > -Richard
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 1:41 PM Sean Dobbs <sdobbs at fsu.edu
> > <mailto:sdobbs at fsu.edu>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi Richard,
> >
> >     One correction:  by default the energy deposited in the light guides
> >     is not added to the main block energy in mcsmear, because its effect
> >     has not yet been studied in detail.
> >
> >     ---Sean
> >
> >     On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 1:38 PM Richard Jones
> >     <richard.t.jones at uconn.edu <mailto:richard.t.jones at uconn.edu>>
> wrote:
> >     >
> >     > Hello Ilya,
> >     >
> >     > I agree, although I want to add the light is generated
> >     separately in the lead glass blocks and the lucite light guides,
> >     in the MC simulation. These two are combined into a single light
> >     output in mcsmear, in a treatment that is the same for both
> >     hdgeant and hdgeant4.
> >     >
> >     > -Richard J.
> >     >
> >     > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:58 PM Ilya Larin <ilarin at jlab.org
> >     <mailto:ilarin at jlab.org>> wrote:
> >     >>
> >     >>
> >     >> Hi Liping,
> >     >>
> >     >>
> >     >> I guess final linearity corrections might be involved in
> >     >>
> >     >> mcsmear and reconstruction to explain the observed
> >     >>
> >     >> positive deviation in reconstructed energy at high energy end.
> >     >>
> >     >> I don't think it is an effect of light guides or limited
> >     >> transparency of the blocks.
> >     >>
> >     >>  Regards,
> >     >> Ilya
> >     >>
> >     >> ________________________________
> >     >> От: Gan, Liping <ganl at uncw.edu <mailto:ganl at uncw.edu>>
> >     >> Отправлено: 13 марта 2019 г. 12:50
> >     >> Кому: Richard Jones; Ilya Larin
> >     >> Копия: Liping Gan; Matthew Shepherd; halld-cal at jlab.org
> >     <mailto:halld-cal at jlab.org>
> >     >> Тема: Re: updated study of Fcal response in MC
> >     >>
> >     >>
> >     >> Hi, Richard,
> >     >>
> >     >>
> >     >> In your result, the energy deviation for the reconstructed
> >     photon in FCAL reaches more than 100 MeV. I would like to ask Ilya
> >     to comment on this since he has done a lot of simulations on
> >     calorimeter.
> >     >>
> >     >>
> >     >> Liping
> >     >>
> >     >>
> >     >>
> >     >> ________________________________
> >     >> From: Richard Jones <richard.t.jones at uconn.edu
> >     <mailto:richard.t.jones at uconn.edu>>
> >     >> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 2:16 PM
> >     >> To: Gan, Liping
> >     >> Cc: Liping Gan; Matthew Shepherd; halld-cal at jlab.org
> >     <mailto:halld-cal at jlab.org>
> >     >> Subject: Re: updated study of Fcal response in MC
> >     >>
> >     >> Hello Liping,
> >     >>
> >     >> The response of the calorimeter itself in the MC does not have
> >     these two inflection points that you see in these plots. Those are
> >     coming from the interaction between the non-linear response in the
> >     simulation coupled with the (non-equivalent) non-linear
> >     corrections being applied in mcsmear and the cluster energy
> >     reconstruction. This plot shows the net effect of all 3 (MC +
> >     mcsmear + recon).
> >     >>
> >     >> -Richard
> >     >>
> >     >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 1:13 PM Gan, Liping <ganl at uncw.edu
> >     <mailto:ganl at uncw.edu>> wrote:
> >     >>
> >     >> Hi, Richard,
> >     >>
> >     >>
> >     >> Thanks for the excellent result. I just wonder if there is any
> >     explanation for the small bump at 1.5-2.5 GeV in you plots? Thanks!
> >     >>
> >     >>
> >     >> Liping
> >     >>
> >     >> ________________________________
> >     >> From: Richard Jones <richard.t.jones at uconn.edu
> >     <mailto:richard.t.jones at uconn.edu>>
> >     >> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 10:37:29 AM
> >     >> To: Liping Gan; Matthew Shepherd
> >     >> Cc: halld-cal at jlab.org <mailto:halld-cal at jlab.org>
> >     >> Subject: updated study of Fcal response in MC
> >     >>
> >     >> Hello Liping and all,
> >     >>
> >     >> At your suggestion, I went back and redid my study of
> >     reconstructed showers in the FCAL from MC, comparing hdgeant and
> >     hdgeant4, this time covering a larger energy range up to 8 GeV.
> >     For the results, see the latest document uploaded to docdb.
> >     >>
> >     >>
> >
> https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhalldweb.jlab.org%2Fdoc-private%2FDocDB%2FShowDocument%3Fdocid%3D3852&data=02%7C01%7Challd-cal%40jlab.org%7C3d9cb12b7dfa47411d1c08d6a7fde092%7Cb4d7ee1f4fb34f0690372b5b522042ab%7C1%7C0%7C636881106178379474&sdata=PszBsgk8APE2veNcCL7OYMRLzD0s2FHKYnT%2BDk4FOU0%3D&reserved=0
> >     <
> https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhalldweb.jlab.org%2Fdoc-private%2FDocDB%2FShowDocument%3Fdocid%3D3852&data=02%7C01%7Challd-cal%40jlab.org%7C3d9cb12b7dfa47411d1c08d6a7fde092%7Cb4d7ee1f4fb34f0690372b5b522042ab%7C1%7C0%7C636881106178379474&sdata=PszBsgk8APE2veNcCL7OYMRLzD0s2FHKYnT%2BDk4FOU0%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >     >>
> >     >> Here is a summary of what I found.
> >     >>
> >     >> I found a small bug in my fitting code that shifted the
> >     Ereconstructed down by 16 MeV relative to the generated in my
> >     earlier studies. This made the negative y-intercept in the
> >     Ereconstructed vs Egenerated appear worse than it actually is.
> >     >> I adjusted the output from shower particles in hdgeant4
> >     relative to hdgeant down by 0.8% as we discussed a the last
> >     calorimeter meeting. This change is visible in the new results. I
> >     now claim that the agreement in the shower energy response between
> >     hdgeant and hdgeant4 is very good.
> >     >> With the new larger simulated energy range, my statistics of
> >     100K events total is limiting my statistical accuracy in studying
> >     the non-linearity. Since there is no visible variation with polar
> >     angle seen in these individual plots, I added at the end a plot
> >     with the full statistics over the range 3-11 degrees, which has
> >     less statistical scatter and reveals the nonlinear behavior better.
> >     >> Above 4 GeV there is a very large rise in the reconstructed
> >     energy. Overall the nonlinear correction needs work at both the
> >     low and high energy ends of the Fcal spectrum.
> >     >>
> >     >> -Richard Jones
> >     >
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > Halld-cal mailing list
> >     > Halld-cal at jlab.org <mailto:Halld-cal at jlab.org>
> >     >
> >
> https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__mailman.jlab.org_mailman_listinfo_halld-2Dcal%26d%3DDwICAg%26c%3DHPMtquzZjKY31rtkyGRFnQ%26r%3DbxTPW7N21WY8eJ2MkW85CQ%26m%3DbouDUuc6DyFXdu5NFXB5Z9lKF6BEkByPb1KeQQSg7OQ%26s%3D8SkCF38MWuPDef6OIjS0x2dCrljm_jf7sqkd73-ZY8s%26e&data=02%7C01%7Challd-cal%40jlab.org%7C3d9cb12b7dfa47411d1c08d6a7fde092%7Cb4d7ee1f4fb34f0690372b5b522042ab%7C1%7C0%7C636881106178379474&sdata=cFSANOuUHTBTxhcPVqKfQMBksMAWOWCA7RmZ098Lsik%3D&reserved=0=
> >     <
> https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__mailman.jlab.org_mailman_listinfo_halld-2Dcal%26d%3DDwICAg%26c%3DHPMtquzZjKY31rtkyGRFnQ%26r%3DbxTPW7N21WY8eJ2MkW85CQ%26m%3DbouDUuc6DyFXdu5NFXB5Z9lKF6BEkByPb1KeQQSg7OQ%26s%3D8SkCF38MWuPDef6OIjS0x2dCrljm_jf7sqkd73-ZY8s%26e&data=02%7C01%7Challd-cal%40jlab.org%7C3d9cb12b7dfa47411d1c08d6a7fde092%7Cb4d7ee1f4fb34f0690372b5b522042ab%7C1%7C0%7C636881106178379474&sdata=cFSANOuUHTBTxhcPVqKfQMBksMAWOWCA7RmZ098Lsik%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Halld-cal mailing list
> > Halld-cal at jlab.org
> >
> https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.jlab.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fhalld-cal&data=02%7C01%7Challd-cal%40jlab.org%7C3d9cb12b7dfa47411d1c08d6a7fde092%7Cb4d7ee1f4fb34f0690372b5b522042ab%7C1%7C0%7C636881106178389475&sdata=1pN9sFPnRUqaYr9sJbkZfzRZTOykcDz3Iv8Zm03Xxl4%3D&reserved=0
>
> _______________________________________________
> Halld-cal mailing list
> Halld-cal at jlab.org
>
> https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.jlab.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fhalld-cal&data=02%7C01%7Challd-cal%40jlab.org%7C3d9cb12b7dfa47411d1c08d6a7fde092%7Cb4d7ee1f4fb34f0690372b5b522042ab%7C1%7C0%7C636881106178389475&sdata=1pN9sFPnRUqaYr9sJbkZfzRZTOykcDz3Iv8Zm03Xxl4%3D&reserved=0
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/halld-cal/attachments/20190313/adcf799d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Halld-cal mailing list