<html>
  <head>

    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p>Folks,</p>
    <p>Please find the minutes <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://halldweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/HDGeant4_Meeting,_March_12,_2019#Minutes">here</a>
      and below.</p>
    <p>  -- Mark</p>
    <p>_______________________</p>
    <p>
    </p>
    <div id="globalWrapper">
      <div id="column-content">
        <div id="content" class="mw-body" role="main">
          <h2 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading" lang="en"><span
              dir="auto">Minutes, HDGeant4 Meeting, March 12, 2019</span></h2>
          <div id="bodyContent" class="mw-body-content">
            <div id="mw-content-text" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"
              lang="en">
              <p>Present:
              </p>
              <ul>
                <li> <b> Glasgow: </b> Peter Pauli</li>
                <li> <b> JLab: </b> Shankar Adhikari, Alex
                  Austregesilo, Thomas Britton, Stuart Fegan, Mark Ito
                  (chair), Simon Taylor, Beni Zihlmann</li>
                <li> <b> UConn: </b> Richard Jones</li>
              </ul>
              <p>There is a <a rel="nofollow" class="external text"
                  href="https://bluejeans.com/s/1aas1/">recording of the
                  meeting on the BlueJeans site</a>. Use your JLab
                credentials to access it.
              </p>
              <h3><span class="mw-headline"
                  id="Review_of_minutes_from_the_last_HDGeant4">Review
                  of minutes from the last HDGeant4</span></h3>
              <p>We reviewed <a
href="https://halldweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/HDGeant4_Meeting,_February_26,_2019#Minutes"
                  title="HDGeant4 Meeting, February 26, 2019">the
                  minutes from February 26</a>. Simon continues to work
                on single-particle gun comparisons of HDG3 vs. HDG4.
              </p>
              <h3><span class="mw-headline"
                  id="Discussion.2Fproposal_for_making_transition_to_G4">Discussion/proposal_for_making_transition_to_G4</span></h3>
              <p>Mark led us through the <a
href="https://halldweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/GlueX_Software_Meeting,_March_5,_2019#Discussion.2Fproposal_for_making_transition_to_G4"
                  title="GlueX Software Meeting, March 5, 2019">discussion
                  from the last Software Meeting</a> on a policy for
                making the transition to HDG4. He concludes that there
                was no consensus on what the policy should be. Since
                studies and comparisons are going forward in any case,
                he proposed, and the group agreed, that we drop the idea
                of a formal policy. As a corollary, we are dropping the
                idea of a document to support collaboration-wide
                adoption of HDG4; the recommendation that we do so has
                essentially been rejected, at least for now.
              </p>
              <h3><span class="mw-headline"
id="G3.2FG4_comparison_for_.CF.81.28770.29_cross_section:_after_ST_fix.2C_without_trigger_emulation">G3/G4
                  comparison for ρ(770) cross section: after ST fix,
                  without trigger emulation</span></h3>
              <p>Alex repeated his study from two weeks ago with a fix
                to the start counter geometry and with no trigger
                emulation as suggested last time. His presentation
                starts at 12:50 in the recording.
              </p>
              <p>He first showed the <a rel="nofollow" class="external
                  text"
href="https://halldweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/9/9d/Accpentance_g3_g4_notrigger.pdf">overall
                  acceptance as a function of energy</a>. Removing the
                trigger emulation had almost no effect. The disagreement
                at low energy remains.
              </p>
              <p>Next he showed a selection from the <a rel="nofollow"
                  class="external text"
href="https://halldweb.jlab.org/talks/2019/Independent_rho_G3_G4_noTrigger.pdf">large
                  number of comparison plots he produced</a>. He
                highlighted the following areas (with page numbers):
              </p>
              <ol>
                <li> FDC Cathode (32.54)</li>
                <li> B/FCal Shower Energy (76/77, 308/311)</li>
                <li> Timing of charged tracks in FCal/BCal (866/873)</li>
                <li> Tracking below 12 degrees (1041)</li>
              </ol>
              <p>In general things look more similar than they did in
                the previous version of the the study.
              </p>
              <ul>
                <li> The number of FDC hits on tracks shows a
                  significant difference, 10-20% more hits in the HDG4
                  simulation. Richard thought this might be due to
                  difference in energy deposition physics in G3 vs. G4.</li>
                <li> The time of charged particles measured in the BCAL
                  vs the real time has a high-side tail much larger for
                  HDG3 than for HDG4. Since these may be hadronic
                  showers, Richard stated that neither is to be trusted.</li>
                <li> Alex showed a <a rel="nofollow" class="external
                    text"
href="https://halldweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/3/35/G3_G4_combocontruction.png">plot
                    showing were events are cut in the analysis chain</a>.
                  In particular, there is cut that requires all charged
                  particles to agree on the RF bunch that caused the
                  event. The plot shows a much larger number of events
                  eliminated by the timing agreement cut for HDG3 than
                  for HDG4 about a factor of two. This may be related to
                  the BCAL timing effecting the proton time.
                  <ul>
                    <li> Richard will look at the these BCAL timing
                      distributions in real data. Perhaps neither
                      simulation does a good job and we should smear
                      this quantity with distributions derived from real
                      data.</li>
                  </ul>
                </li>
              </ul>
              <h3><span class="mw-headline"
                  id="FCAL:_comparing_G3_and_G4">FCAL: comparing G3 and
                  G4</span></h3>
              <p>Richard gave <a rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://halldweb.jlab.org/doc-private/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=3852">an
                  update on the energy response of FCAL</a>, comparing
                HDG3 and HDG4.
              </p>
              <ul>
                <li> The work had benefited from interactions with the
                  Calorimeter Group.</li>
                <li> He compares shower energy, after full simulation,
                  smearing, reconstruction, and non-linearity
                  correction.</li>
                <li> The comparison is done in slices of polar angle.</li>
                <li> Agreement between HDG3 and HDG4 is very good.</li>
                <li> He sees a significant remaining non-linearity, both
                  at low energy (below 1 GeV) and at high energy (above
                  4 GeV). The character of the non-linearity for HDG3 is
                  the same as that for HDG4.</li>
              </ul>
              <p>He did not show the corresponding BCAL study but told
                us that the agreement is goo there as well. He now plans
                to start looking at timing in the calorimeters.
              </p>
              <h3><span class="mw-headline"
                  id="Review_of_Issues_and_Pull_Requests">Review of
                  Issues and Pull Requests</span></h3>
              <p>Jon Zarling reported an issue, <a rel="nofollow"
                  class="external text"
                  href="https://github.com/JeffersonLab/HDGeant4/issues/94">Photon
                  Gun Sample Changes Behavior after ~500,000 events? #94</a>
                where photons from the gun do not escape the target deep
                into the HDGeant4 run. Naomi Jarvis was able to
                reproduce it. The problem was real, Richard got to the
                bottom of it, it has been reported to the Geant4
                Collaboration, and a fix implemented in HDGeant4. For
                details of the bug, see Issue #94 on GitHub.
              </p>
            </div>
            <div class="printfooter">
              Retrieved from "<a dir="ltr"
href="https://halldweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=HDGeant4_Meeting,_March_12,_2019&oldid=91808">https://halldweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=HDGeant4_Meeting,_March_12,_2019&oldid=91808</a>"</div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
      <div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
        <ul id="f-list">
          <li id="lastmod"> This page was last modified on 17 March
            2019, at 13:08.</li>
        </ul>
      </div>
    </div>
  </body>
</html>