[Hps-analysis] New WABs

[Sho Uemura]

Sure.

On Fri, 5 Aug 2016, Bradley T Yale wrote:

> I can make some 9.6.p01 version WABs if needed.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sho Uemura <meeg at slac.stanford.edu>
> Sent: Friday, August 5, 2016 12:07:52 PM
> To: Bradley T Yale
> Cc: hps-analysis at jlab.org; Takashi Maruyama
> Subject: Re: New WABs
>
> Takashi - do we need to repeat our studies of the multiple scattering in
> GEANT4, so we know the differences between 9.6.p01 and 10.x??
>
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2016, Bradley T Yale wrote:
>
>> Pure WABs for the new vs. old SLIC/GEANT4 comparison are finishing.
>>
>>
>> NEW SLIC (REF/, G4 v. 10.01.p03):
>>
>> /mss/hallb/hps/production/pass6/recon/wab/1pt05/wabv2_10to1_4062dz_HPS-EngRun2015-Nominal-v4-4-fieldmap_3.8-fix_pairs1_*.slcio
>>
>>
>> OLD SLIC (HEAD/, G4 v. 10.01.p02):
>>
>> /mss/hallb/hps/production/pass6/recon/wab/1pt05/wabv2_oldG4_10to1_4062dz_HPS-EngRun2015-Nominal-v4-4-fieldmap_3.8-fix_pairs1_*.slcio
>>
>> Each represents 10k generated files (0.7 barns), 10to1 readout.
>>
>> Both use the updated target thickness (4.062 um), so the version of SLIC should be the only difference between them.
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>