[Halld-cal] [EXTERNAL] Re: CPP/NPP BCAL calibration status

Tue Jun 13 07:42:04 EDT 2023

While I have not seen the plots, two major difference of CPP/NPP to all 
other run periods come to mind:
a) the vertex is at z=1cm
b) the physics trigger has a second component the TOF which has never 
before been implemented
     and may have a complete different timing characteristics.

it may be important to explicitly ask  for FCAL/BCAL triggers only, 
excluding the TOF trigger. This may
of course reduce the statistics significantly.

cheers,
Beni

On 6/13/23 03:08, Igal Jaegle via Halld-cal wrote:
> Thank you, Stjepan. Zisis & CAL experts what are your inputs?
>
> tks ig.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* soy062 <soy062 at uregina.ca>
> *Sent:* Monday, June 12, 2023 1:38 PM
> *To:* Igal Jaegle <ijaegle at jlab.org>
> *Cc:* Karthik Suresh <ksv656 at uregina.ca>; Mark Macrae Dalton 
> <dalton at jlab.org>; Rory Miskimen <miskimen at physics.umass.edu>; Zisis 
> Papandreou <zisis at uregina.ca>
> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: CPP/NPP BCAL calibration status
> Hello Igal,
>
> I looked at the layer 3 plots, and indeed, they don't seem to be
> converging. Even the fits in the 2y reconstructed mass look very weird
> and don't seem to improve per iteration. This is probably very closely
> related to the aforementioned issues with Layer 3. Usually I've never
> seen this behaviour for the background and total fits, as things looked
> rather clean for other experiments (see attached Be target from PrimEx).
>
> Also, looking at the coefficient of variation vs. iteration plot, there
> is a big drop in the last iteration, which doesn't really reflect in the
> other plots (it's essentially zero), so I'm not sure why that happened.
> Currently, I'm not sure what advice to give for layer 3, since it seems
> to be a complexity related to the CPP/NPP experiment conditions. Maybe
> someone can give additional comments on this.
>
> Best regards,
> Stjepan
>
> On 2023-06-10 10:47, Igal Jaegle wrote:
> > Thank you, Karthik, for your input. Ok, the 12th iteration finished
> > this morning, layer 1 and 2 did converge although their bands seems
> > larger than what you are usually showing. The 3rd layer is all over
> > the place because no pi0 resonance is seen, look at
> > l3_gain_checking_1.py. What is your advice in this case?
> >
> >  tks ig.
> >
> > -------------------------
> >
> > From: Karthik Suresh <ksv656 at uregina.ca>
> > Sent: Friday, June 9, 2023 11:45 PM
> > To: Igal Jaegle <ijaegle at jlab.org>
> > Cc: soy062 <soy062 at uregina.ca>; Mark Macrae Dalton <dalton at jlab.org>;
> > Rory Miskimen <miskimen at physics.umass.edu>; Zisis Papandreou
> > <zisis at uregina.ca>
> > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: CPP/NPP BCAL calibration status
> >
> > Good evening Igal,
> >
> > The current procedure is such that the convergence could be slow (due
> > the the iterative nature). Also, I doubt if  the third layer can be
> > calibrated within 1% precision with this method. But I think we could
> > conclude that after a few more iterations.
> >
> > Thank you
> > Karthik Suresh
> >
> > On 2023-06-09 21:26, Igal Jaegle wrote:
> >> Thank you, Stjepan, for your answer and help. It seems very slowly
> >> converging, see the latest report 8. The first values were not so
> > bad,
> >> then I did a mistake in the new gain calculation, correct it, then
> > it
> >> seems to slowly recover but very slowly.  Could it be due to the 3rd
> >> layer seeing no pi0s? What should be done to the 3rd layer, put
> >> default values or the values of the run period precede it or succeed
> >> it? What is your suggestion for the 3rd layer?
> >>
> >>  tks ig.
> >>
> >> -------------------------
> >>
> >> From: soy062 <soy062 at uregina.ca>
> >> Sent: Friday, June 9, 2023 10:56 PM
> >> To: Igal Jaegle <ijaegle at jlab.org>
> >> Cc: Mark Macrae Dalton <dalton at jlab.org>; Rory Miskimen
> >> <miskimen at physics.umass.edu>; Zisis Papandreou <zisis at uregina.ca>;
> >> Karthik Suresh <ksv656 at uregina.ca>
> >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: CPP/NPP BCAL calibration status
> >>
> >> Hi Igal,
> >>
> >> Sorry for the delayed response. The histograms in the "fit" ROOT
> > file
> >> are arranged in a cyclical way. For example, starting from 1 to 4
> >> (channel number) would be layer 1, 5 to 8 would be layer 2, 9 to 12
> >> would be layer 3, 13 to 16 would be layer 4 and then for 17 to 20 we
> >> go
> >> back to layer 1. The final one is 763.
> >>
> >> Looking at the plots (pi0gainmatrix.pdf), there seems to be
> > something
> >> missing in the pipeline. Basically for each iteration the pi0 mass
> > is
> >> not converging, which means that somewhere along the way the local
> >> ccdb
> >> gain constants are not getting updated after each iteration or the
> >> local
> >> ccdb is not getting copied to the right location. This can be seen
> > for
> >>
> >> example in the sigma/mean vs iteration plot, it is constant, which
> > it
> >> should not be.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Stjepan
> >>
> >> On 2023-06-09 16:45, Igal Jaegle wrote:
> >>> Bump!
> >>>
> >>> -------------------------
> >>>
> >>> From: Igal Jaegle
> >>> Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 9:20 PM
> >>> To: Mark Macrae Dalton <dalton at jlab.org>; Rory Miskimen
> >>> <miskimen at physics.umass.edu>; Zisis Papandreou <zisis at uregina.ca>;
> >>> Karthik Suresh <ksv656 at uregina.ca>; Stjepan Orešić
> >>> <soy062 at uregina.ca>
> >>> Subject: CPP/NPP BCAL calibration status
> >>>
> >>>  All,
> >>>
> >>>  I am testing the upgrades of the BCAL gain calibration procedure.
> >> The
> >>> upgrades free the calibrator of all interventions between each
> >>> iteration making the calibration fully automized. I made a wiki
> >> which
> >>> can be accessed from
> >>> https://halldweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page [1] go to,
> > Barrel
> >>> Carolimter, pi0 gain calibration, and CPP/NPP (2022-05) BCAL pi0
> >>> calibration [2]
> >>>
> >>>  The report and individual fit can be found here:
> >>> https://halldweb.jlab.org/primexd/bcal-cal/2022-05/1/ [3]
> >>>
> >>>  Stjepan/Karthik, how the layer ordering is working? 1 to 512 first
> >>> layer, 513 to 1024 2nd layer, and 1025 to 1534 3rd layer? The 3rd
> >> sees
> >>> nothing is that an issue? How to solve it? Or leave with it?
> >>>
> >>>  tks ig
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Links:
> >>> ------
> >>> [1] https://halldweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> >>> [2]
> >>>
> >>
> > 
> https://halldweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/CPP/NPP_(2022-05)_BCAL_pi0_calibration
> > [1]
> >> [1]
> >>> [3] https://halldweb.jlab.org/primexd/bcal-cal/2022-05/1/
> >>
> >>
> >> Links:
> >> ------
> >> [1]
> >>
> > 
> https://halldweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/CPP/NPP_(2022-05)_BCAL_pi0_calibration
> > [1]
> >
> > --
> > Karthik Suresh
> >
> >
> > Links:
> > ------
> > [1]
> > 
> https://halldweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/CPP/NPP_(2022-05)_BCAL_pi0_calibration
>
> _______________________________________________
> Halld-cal mailing list
> Halld-cal at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-cal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/halld-cal/attachments/20230613/d74ca223/attachment-0001.html>