<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;" dir="ltr">
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">Hi, Richard,</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">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!</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">Liping</p>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Richard Jones <richard.t.jones@uconn.edu><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 12, 2019 10:37:29 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Liping Gan; Matthew Shepherd<br>
<b>Cc:</b> halld-cal@jlab.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> updated study of Fcal response in MC</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Hello Liping and all,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a href="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%7Cd16b185b1f1d43bedc0808d6a70e1523%7Cb4d7ee1f4fb34f0690372b5b522042ab%7C1%7C0%7C636880076258052388&sdata=NLWsEIdR%2FzWNiyhxvaPr9yahJM3EJ3OcsQtY6q3pxrE%3D&reserved=0" originalSrc="https://halldweb.jlab.org/doc-private/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=3852" shash="oKDhxb/9gCfX5NxJpp5BW8gV/i7M+mJE330T2kEhDExULyNk17NZUDC1119oHM6KDkIa4P98puYyLQMmO5lLG8x0sllTrN0eGJd2pFksiT1FXgxjlk4zizDcOLxVao28pyevHKMlhksMrip6672uSnXaX0OmVywrB2Alrv8IibU=" originalsrc="https://halldweb.jlab.org/doc-private/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=3852" shash="My7E3RpsAotGPKdt4Pi9trN8HFtQfH9btbLWwDkM4HTFYzuhr8ioP5HEXVMXdBpmUCpv6XLmOqV04Exm0bfS8Az5RkBbcnY57ia01jXkQ4OLHWpdP35DxpmBcRcTuuiK0Yb36NeH1CYMv97pgKdZKjooj+Juaeva/Se5RLijFeE=">https://halldweb.jlab.org/doc-private/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=3852</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Here is a summary of what I found.</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>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.</li><li>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.</li><li>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. </li><li>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.</li></ol>
<div>-Richard Jones</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>