[Hps-analysis] New WABs

[Bradley T Yale]

We switched G4 versions when the SLIC HEAD revision was used to solve the displaced vertex problem, c. October 2015.

________________________________
From: Sho Uemura <meeg at slac.stanford.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 1:28:59 PM
To: Bradley T Yale
Cc: Stepan Stepanyan; hps-analysis at jlab.org
Subject: Re: [Hps-analysis] New WABs

When did we move from 9.6.p01 to 10.01.p02?

On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, Bradley T Yale wrote:

> Up until yesterday.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sho Uemura <meeg at slac.stanford.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 1:21:59 PM
> To: Bradley T Yale
> Cc: Stepan Stepanyan; hps-analysis at jlab.org
> Subject: Re: [Hps-analysis] New WABs
>
> I'm out of touch - how long have we been using 10.01.p02?
>
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, Bradley T Yale wrote:
>
>> 5x more WABs are done using the 10.01.p03 version:
>>
>>
>> /mss/hallb/hps/production/pass6/recon/wab/1pt05/wabv2_10to1_4062dz_*
>>
>>
>> where "4062" refers to the updated target thickness (in nm).
>>
>> So to clarify, the original 100 wabv2 files in that directory use SLIC v10.01.p02, (w/ original thickness), and files 101-500 (as labelled above) use 10.01.p03 and the new thickness.
>>
>> The rest of the new ones (501-1000) are in progress, and I can match these using the old version + new target thickness as well. WABs are pretty cheap, as suggested.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Hps-analysis <hps-analysis-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Sho Uemura <meeg at slac.stanford.edu>
>> Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 10:50:00 AM
>> To: Stepan Stepanyan
>> Cc: hps-analysis at jlab.org
>> Subject: Re: [Hps-analysis] New WABs
>>
>> I think running WABs is pretty cheap ("10x" just matches the amount of
>> wabv1 we had), and that is one of the validation checks we need.
>>
>> But yes, before we use the new SLIC for any big production we need to
>> check everything.
>>
>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, Stepan Stepanyan wrote:
>>
>>> May be before running x10 of WAB we should make some small amount of
>>> simulations to validate it.
>>>
>>> On 8/4/16 10:26 AM, Sho Uemura wrote:
>>>> New SLIC is 10.01.p03. I don't know what validation has been done or is
>>>> planned to make sure none of the physics we care about has changed.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, Maurik Holtrop wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Has the version of GEANT4 changed between the old and new SLIC?
>>>>>
>>>>> If it has, then I think there is a big reason to have enough data with
>>>>> both versions to make a meaningful comparison.
>>>>> We can discuss if this would also be needed as well if only the target
>>>>> thickness changed. I would think probably not?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Maurik
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 4, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Bradley T Yale <btu29 at wildcats.unh.edu>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>> The old SLIC is still around, but it should be up-to-date with this one
>>>>>> though.
>>>>>> I think it was just future stability that led to moving away from the
>>>>>> HEAD revision (hopefully Jeremy can comment).
>>>>>> From: Sho Uemura <meeg at slac.stanford.edu>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 1:02:54 AM
>>>>>> To: Bradley T Yale
>>>>>> Cc: hps-analysis at jlab.org; Takashi Maruyama
>>>>>> Subject: Re: New WABs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it possible to do this with both the old and new SLIC?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, Bradley T Yale wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's no problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll go ahead and make them with the updated target thickness (0.0004062
>>>>>>> vs. 0.0004375 cm).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>> From: Sho Uemura <meeg at slac.stanford.edu>
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 8:24:02 PM
>>>>>>> To: Bradley T Yale
>>>>>>> Cc: hps-analysis at jlab.org; Takashi Maruyama
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: New WABs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The events look fine. Normalization hasn't changed much (Rafo's a and b
>>>>>>> factors are about the same). Distribution shapes don't look
>>>>>>> significantly
>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would be good to have a factor of 10 more of the pure WABs, if it's
>>>>>>> easy.
>>>>>>> I don't expect it to tell us anything new but it will make things
>>>>>>> clearer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, Bradley T Yale wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unweighted WAB events using the v2 generator have finished recon.
>>>>>>>> Everything that contains them are labelled 'wabv2':
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pure WAB:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /mss/hallb/hps/production/pass6/recon/wab/1pt05/wabv2_10to1_HPS-EngRun2015-Nominal-v4-4-fieldmap_3.8-fix_pairs1_*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WAB with background:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /mss/hallb/hps/production/pass6/recon/tritrig-wab-beam-tri/1pt05/tritrigv1_NOSUMCUT-wabv2-egsv3-triv2-g4v1_HPS-EngRun2015-Nominal-v4-4-fieldmap_3.8-fix_pairs1_*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ones with background also contain tritrig without an ESum generator
>>>>>>>> cut, to eliminate possible errors from it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once Takashi finishes tweaking the egs5 procedure to eliminate WAB
>>>>>>>> double-counting, I'll rerun everything along with an updated target
>>>>>>>> thickness as well, probably in a fresh directory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Bradley
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Hps-analysis mailing list
>>>>>> Hps-analysis at jlab.org
>>>>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Hps-analysis mailing list
>>>> Hps-analysis at jlab.org
>>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Hps-analysis mailing list
>>> Hps-analysis at jlab.org
>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Hps-analysis mailing list
>> Hps-analysis at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/hps-analysis/attachments/20160804/cbb637b7/attachment-0001.html>