[Hps-analysis] FW: MC production
Rafayel Paremuzyan
rafopar at jlab.org
Tue Jun 13 22:03:42 EDT 2017
Hi Matt,
thank you for the replay.
> . However, this only is at large angle (about a factor of 10)
in 2016 too discrepancy is much worse at larger angles, at least
the figure below show Data and MC comparison, at the positron region (X
> 100),
where in the data we almost don't have any FEEs, while MC FEEs are more
than x100 larger
than data.
> but I doubt it, since most of the FEE rate comes at low angles
yes FEEs are mostly at small angles, the x10 from previous e-mail
represents everything which you pointed out is mostly small angle FEEs,
and for larger angles as you can seem the discrepancy is much worse.
> I assume you account for the prescale in the data?
This is pulser trigger, both in MC and data. I didn't do any prescaling,
Rafo
compare_ECal_Rates_AboveX100.png
On 06/13/2017 09:46 PM, Solt, Matthew Reagan wrote:
>
> Hi Rafo,
>
>
> In the 2015 data, we saw a major discrepancy between MC and data for
> FEEs due to the wrong form factor in EGS5. This was never fixed to my
> knowledge. However, this only is at large angle (about a factor of
> 10). At low angle, the agreement is much better (see my talk from 1.5
> years ago here slide 7:
> https://www.jlab.org/conferences/hps2015oct/talks/tue/am/solt.pdf)
>
>
> It's hard to know if that's the source of discrepancy you are seeing
> here since you show as a function of energy. But I doubt it, since
> most of the FEE rate comes at low angles. I have not looked at 2016 FEEs.
>
>
> I assume you account for the prescale in the data? And if I remember
> correctly, different locations in the Ecal had different prescales for
> Singles1 trigger.
>
>
> I hope this helps.
>
>
> Matt Solt
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Hps-analysis <hps-analysis-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of
> Rafayel Paremuzyan <rafopar at jlab.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 6:22 PM
> *To:* hps-analysis at jlab.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Hps-analysis] FW: MC production
> Hello Takaski,
>
> studying background for the positron trigger,
> we noticed in the Wab-Beam-Tri,, FEEs are about an order of magnitude
> higher than FEEs in the data.
>
> In both samples, MC and data, pulser trigger was used.
> Has anyone did similar comparison between data and MC?
>
> Sebouh mentioned that if not correct Form factors are being
> used for FEEs, then it can create about x10 effect. Could you confirm
> that correct Form factors are being used in Egs5?
> Figures below show normalized cluster energy rate distributions from
> MC (WBT) and data.
>
> Rafo
>
>
> Wab-Beam-Tri, pulser trigger
> MC_Ecl1.png
>
> Data: pulser trigger
> Data_Ecl1.png
>
> On 06/13/2017 04:18 PM, Maruyama, Takashi wrote:
>> Any comments are welcome.
>>
>> Takashi
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Maruyama, Takashi
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 10:26 AM
>> To: Bradley T Yale (btu29 at wildcats.unh.edu); McCormick, Jeremy I.; Graf, Norman A.
>> Subject: MC production
>>
>> Thanks to Jeremy, MC production is getting ready for mass production at SLAC. Since many changes have been made recently, I would like to clarify MC parameters and make proposal for mass production. I would like to present this at the analysis meeting or HPS weekly meeting in the next few weeks. Any comments/additions/corrections are all welcome.
>>
>> 1) Generator level cuts
>> EGS5 (beam_v5.f)
>> - FEE cut uses 15 mrad. Do we need to lower to 5mrad?
>> - wab cut uses 10 mrad. Do we need to lower to 5mrad?
>> MadGraph
>> -Tritrig
>> alpha=1/137.036
>> E(e+,e-) > 50 MeV
>> E(e+)+E(e-) > 0.5 GeV
>> |theta_y| > 5 mrad
>> -Wab
>> alpha=1/137.036
>> E(gamma) > 50 MeV, |theta_y(gamma)| > 5 mrad
>> -ap
>> No cuts, but we need to specify A' mass and ctau.
>>
>> Generator level event generation can be started at SLAC, but we have to make sure the initial random number seeds are different between JLab and SLAC so that we don't duplicate events.
>>
>> 2) Event generation
>> 1.05 GeV
>> Beam background: 100 jobs, 500K bunches each
>> Tritrig: 1000 jobs, 10,000 events each
>> Wab: 1000 jobs, 10,000 events each
>> Rad: 100 jobs, 10,000 events each
>> Ap: 100 jobs, 10,000 events each for each mass.
>>
>> 2.3 GeV
>> Same as 1.05 GeV
>>
>> 3) Detector models
>> There are ~100 detector models. We need to decide which detector model to use for mass production.
>> Please make the list.
>>
>> 4) Which files to save and where.
>> All the generator level files are saved, but only recon files are saved.
>> Since tapes cannot be used at SLAC, do we want to transfer all the recon files to JLab?
>> At SLAC, the files will be saved in /nfs/slac/g/hps3/data/mc_production . This directory tree may need a clean-up.
>>
>> 5) What to generate and at what priority.
>> 1.05 GeV
>> Wab-beam-tri using nominal detector (priority #1)
>> Tritrig-wab-beam using nominal detector (priority #2)
>>
>> 2.3 GeV
>> Wab-beam-tri using nominal detector (priority #3)
>> Tritrig-wab-beam using nominal detector (priority #4)
>>
>> 4.4 GeV
>> Wab-beam-tri using L0 detector
>> Tritrig-wab-beam using L0 detector
>>
>> We need to decide where to generate. Since wab-beam-tri requires a large disk space, JLab might be the only possibility.
>>
>> 6) Spreadsheet
>> We need a spreadsheet based on Google doc that summarizes all the files and production status/priorities. This spreadsheet must be accessible by all the HPS collaborators (read only).
>>
>>
>> Takashi
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170613/228cd66a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Hps-analysis
mailing list