[Hps-analysis] mad5VSdata!

[Sho Uemura]

Cuts are:

1. pair1 trigger

2. for electron and positron, track-cluster match chisq < 5 (should be 
available to you as particle.getGoodnessOfPID())

3. for electron and positron, |time(cluster) - time(track) - 43.0| < 4 ns

4. |time(electron cluster) - time(positron cluster)| < 2 ns

5. electron and positron clusters are in opposite halves of the ECal 
(y(electron cluster)*y(positron cluster)<0)

6. for electron and positron, track chisq < 50

7. target-constrained vertex chisq < 50

8. p(electron)<0.75*ebeam

9. p(target-contrained vertex)<1.15*ebeam

Let me know if you need help getting any of these variables from the 
event.

On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Luca Colaneri wrote:

> Added the p(e-)<0.8 cut. The code is exctly the same, just substituted 
> everywhere E->|p|. Could you please tell me all the cuts that should be there 
> to be alligned with everyone else?
>
> thanks!
>
> L.
>
> Il 27/07/16 16:14, Sho Uemura ha scritto:
>> Looks weird. Can you send your code again? You should be requiring 
>> p(e-)<0.8 but I think there must be some other problem as well.
>> 
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Luca Colaneri wrote:
>> 
>>> I removed all info from Ecal, now it's just |p| everywhere....now 
>>> everything looks wierder..
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Il 26/07/16 17:44, Sho Uemura ha scritto:
>>>> Yes, the comparison is consistent. But changing to SVT momentum (and 
>>>> getting rid of the E(e-)+E(e+)<1.05 cut you have) will make the plots 
>>>> consistent with everyone else's.
>>>> 
>>>> Luca: The ECal energy is not completely corrected for edge effects (that 
>>>> is impossible). So the (large) fraction of pair events near the edges of 
>>>> the ECal often have ECal energies that are lower than the SVT momenta, so 
>>>> an Esum distribution made with the ECal will always be missing a lot of 
>>>> stuff at high Esum.
>>>> 
>>>> Maurik: Luca's plots do not have a tight fiducial cut. It is 55 mrad >= 
>>>> |theta_y| >= 15 mrad.
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Luca Colaneri wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> ok, good to know. Still, I did the same on MC, so at least the 
>>>>> comparison is consistent.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why using Ecal rather tha svt makes it so different?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Il 26/07/16 16:10, Sho Uemura ha scritto:
>>>>>> I think I see a problem - you're histogramming the electron and 
>>>>>> positron energies (which come from the ECal) instead of the momentum 
>>>>>> magnitude. That explains why your esum distribution for data looks 
>>>>>> funny.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Luca Colaneri wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Good news everyone!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> mad5 recon data looks good! pdf in attachment
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I also attach the piece of code I've been using so far to read recon 
>>>>>>> data (both exp and MC)  using the slcio c++ api.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Bests
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> L.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Luca Colaneri, PhD
>>>>> Post-doctorant/ Computational Platforms Consultant
>>>>> Institut de Physique Nucléaire d'Orsay / University of Connecticut
>>>>> Contacts: luca.colaneri at roma2.infn.it
>>>>>          colaneri at jlab.org
>>>>>          colaneri at ipno.i2p3.fr
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Luca Colaneri, PhD
>>> Post-doctorant/ Computational Platforms Consultant
>>> Institut de Physique Nucléaire d'Orsay / University of Connecticut
>>> Contacts: luca.colaneri at roma2.infn.it
>>>          colaneri at jlab.org
>>>          colaneri at ipno.i2p3.fr
>>> 
>>> 
>
> -- 
> Luca Colaneri, PhD
> Post-doctorant/ Computational Platforms Consultant
> Institut de Physique Nucléaire d'Orsay / University of Connecticut
> Contacts: luca.colaneri at roma2.infn.it
>          colaneri at jlab.org
>          colaneri at ipno.i2p3.fr
>
>