[Halld-pid-upgrade] Fwd: Re: thoughts after PID session [From Matt]

[Elton Smith]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: thoughts after PID session
Date: 	Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:59:59 -0400
From: 	Matthew Shepherd <mashephe at indiana.edu>
To: 	Michael Williams <mwill at mit.edu>
CC: 	Curtis Meyer <cmeyer at cmu.edu>, Paul Mattione <pmatt at jlab.org>, 
"Meyer Curtis A." <curtis.meyer at cmu.edu>, "Ito Mark M." 
<marki at jlab.org>, "Eugene Chudakov" <gen at jlab.org>, Justin Stevens 
<jrsteven at mit.edu>, Yi Qiang <yqiang at jlab.org>, Elton Smith 
<elton at jlab.org>



Mike,

Paul's simulations (and the general GlueX MC) includes all material interactions within the baseline detector (sans PID system).  Paul had just parametrically put in the performance of the PID system rather than writing a hit-level MC for the PID system and modeling the response.  I (or more accurately, my student) put in the PID system material and studied photon reconstruction efficiency.  Does that help clarify?

This means two things have not been examined:

- tracking resolution for PID options that sit within the tracking volume (gas Ckov and LHCb RICH do not)
- any not-easily-parametrized effect (like noise, non-Gaussian tails, real fiducial cuts, etc. ) on the performance of the PID system

Matt


On Oct 8, 2012, at 4:51 PM, Michael Williams wrote:

> This response leads me to believe that I didn't understand which material interactions were off.   This is def possible since on Evo I could only hear responses and not questions.  I took this to mean all material interactions in the detector.  Matt's reply makes me think it is just in the pid system. Clearly one is very important here and the other is not.  Which one was done in the simulation?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 8, 2012, at 2:33 PM, "Matthew Shepherd" <mashephe at indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 8, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Michael Williams wrote:
>>
>>> Paul, did I hear correctly that material interactions are not included in the study so far?  Pretty important ... if not b/c of time constraints so far that's totally understandable ... but pretty important to have this in before making any decisions (or showing to any external people).
>>
>> It depends... if we are going with either the LHCb or gas threshold design, we've studied all the material interactions that matter.  Both of these are outside the tracking volume so the only important thing is photon reconstruction efficiency in the forward calorimeter.  We have looked at this for those two designs.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/halld-pid-upgrade/attachments/20121008/f73f30a1/attachment-0001.html