[Halld-cal] updated FCAL mc response study

[Shepherd, Matthew]

Just a factual correction:

> On Mar 26, 2019, at 9:51 PM, Sean Dobbs <sdobbs at fsu.edu> wrote:

> By the way, I think the best documentation for the procedure that was
> previously followed is the logbook entry linked in the entry in Matt's
> original post:  https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3504395

The log entry that describes the problem is here:

https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3621347

It is fairly complete and says exactly what I plotted and what the issue is.  I can turn it into a PDF, put it in the document database, and call it a "technical note" but that seems unnecessary.

We will proceed with retuning.

Matt

> 
> ---Sean
> 
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 7:25 PM Richard Jones <richard.t.jones at uconn.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello Matt,
>> 
>> I don't know how to address it further, without a technical note or some written record of what was done in the earlier study. The code that is checked into master for both hdgeant and hdgeant4 that affects the fcal simulation is good to go. The consistency between the two simulations is also very good at the level of the total reconstructed shower response. Of course there could be surprises, but I do not anticipate needing to update either simulation as touching electromagnetic showers in the fcal in the future -- unless you find something that demands it of course.
>> 
>> -Richard Jones
>> 
>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 3:41 PM Shepherd, Matthew <mashephe at indiana.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Richard,
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 25, 2019, at 7:28 AM, Richard Jones <richard.t.jones at uconn.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I understand your concern that something has changed in the MC, but other things could have changed as well, for example the cluster algorithm in the fcal or the nonlinear correction applied to the reconstructed fcal cluster energy. Any of these would change the behavior of the results I show.
>>> 
>>> The only changes appear to be in the code that deals with the MC response of the detector.  The clustering algorithm hasn't change and the nonlinear correction is the very thing we are discussing:  it worked, then it didn't.
>>> 
>>> We will retune once we get the green light that all low level changes have been made and propagated into the master for use.
>>> 
>>> Matt
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Halld-cal mailing list
>> 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%3D31_0RjzvrDBB6h2nW9loJL-wKUeMFjpHQMwW5CLuPu0%26s%3DPpABmHAbSxw28-s7b07N19kbbalx1wPY0oya6Be8lyU%26e&data=02%7C01%7Challd-cal%40jlab.org%7Cf5ec9d3b6f2c4463e6e408d6b2b81e51%7Cb4d7ee1f4fb34f0690372b5b522042ab%7C1%7C0%7C636892901191735957&sdata=BiRJ8JoVFoPlHkUE5OMY%2FThcOmeK83uvNF8TdPW6s%2FE%3D&reserved=0=