> On May 6, 2016, at 5:11 PM, Sho Uemura wrote: > > All plots are still from data, unless otherwise specified. > > thingy_mc: same plot as "thingy" from before, but from tritrig-beam-tri. This plot looks very similar to the one from data. The visibility of the cutoff is strongly dependent on where on the Z scale it happens to fall: for Matt's plots, the MC plot happened to mostly put the cutoff on the green/blue divide, and the data plot didn't. > > thingy_rotated: apply an ad-hoc skew so I can project the cutoff onto the X-axis. > > thingy_proj: do the projection > thingy_mc_proj: same plot for MC, for comparison (shows cutoff in same place) > > ecalxy_dark, ecalxy_bright, ecalxy: I cut the projected variable at 0.5 to split events into "bright" and "dark" sides of thingy, and plot the projected position at the ECal. You can see clearly that my cut is effectively a cut on ECal X, and the cutoff is at the edge of the electron gap. > > So this cutoff is from the electron gap, and is the same in data and MC. > > On Fri, 6 May 2016, Nelson, Timothy Knight wrote: > >> I think there might be some structure there from the quantization of crystal positions. >> >> The bigger question is whether this is expected or not. While one could posit that there might be more accidentals in data (is there background in the MC?) the momentum range where this cutoff occurs isn?t really in the vicinity of FEE momenta. >> >>> On May 6, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Graham, Mathew Thomas wrote: >>> >>> It looks like there are two ridges here (in the first plot; pY/P<0.025)?or am I seeing things? Tracks that show up again on the other side of the gap? >>> >>>> On May 6, 2016, at 1:39 PM, Sho Uemura wrote: >>>> >>>> It's the ECal electron gap. See attached. >>>> >>>> On Fri, 6 May 2016, Nelson, Timothy Knight wrote: >>>> >>>>> So, I should add that Sho is right. After drawing the tracks and seeing that they were skimming the edge of our acceptance at the back of the tracker, I simply assumed that the deficit in MC was caused by losing them outside our acceptance. However, the tracks that are lost are the ones that fall *inside* our 6-layer acceptance. This is even stranger. >>>>> >>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>>> On May 5, 2016, at 4:22 PM, Graham, Mathew Thomas wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No rest for the weary?we?ll have an analysis meeting tomorrow. >>>>>> >>>>>> Agenda: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://confluence.slac.stanford.edu/display/hpsg/May+6%2C+2016+DAWG+Meeting >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Connection Details: >>>>>> >>>>>> ? Browser: https://bluejeans.com/722990411 >>>>>> ? Phone: 8882402560 722990411 ## *4 >>>>>> >>>>>> nb & mg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Hps-analysis mailing list >>>>>> Hps-analysis@jlab.org >>>>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Hps-analysis mailing list >>>>> Hps-analysis@jlab.org >>>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis >>>> >>> >> >