<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none"><!--P{margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;background-color:#FFFFFF;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p>Hi Rafo,</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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: <a href="https://www.jlab.org/conferences/hps2015oct/talks/tue/am/solt.pdf">
https://www.jlab.org/conferences/hps2015oct/talks/tue/am/solt.pdf</a>)</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I hope this helps.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Matt Solt<br>
</p>
<div style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33);">
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><b>From:</b> Hps-analysis <hps-analysis-bounces@jlab.org> on behalf of Rafayel Paremuzyan <rafopar@jlab.org><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 13, 2017 6:22 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> hps-analysis@jlab.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Hps-analysis] FW: MC production</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>Hello Takaski,<br>
<br>
studying background for the positron trigger, <br>
we noticed in the Wab-Beam-Tri,, FEEs are about an order of magnitude<br>
higher than FEEs in the data.<br>
<br>
In both samples, MC and data, pulser trigger was used.<br>
Has anyone did similar comparison between data and MC?<br>
<br>
Sebouh mentioned that if not correct Form factors are being<br>
used for FEEs, then it can create about x10 effect. Could you confirm that correct Form factors are being used in Egs5?<br>
Figures below show normalized cluster energy rate distributions from MC (WBT) and data.<br>
<br>
Rafo<br>
<br>
<br>
Wab-Beam-Tri, pulser trigger<br>
<img alt="MC_Ecl1.png" id="docs-internal-guid-f2c3c066-a427-c10e-48d8-6686559eacaf" width="454" height="438" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/frHjZkgOPiHIEfmCmVTiQNRa8i_P2Wwt8twtlvq3R_J3fKuEzlsyozCzRfT4JVH3Qcsy310VTGHhjaDYenGjJbM0IaSR6gD3AscACm3RAiSJXATNRVfIT9Lxzoy5fp5D8ov5WQjYoI4"><br>
<br>
Data: pulser trigger<br>
<img alt="Data_Ecl1.png" id="docs-internal-guid-f2c3c066-a428-29a0-aad6-9fa3548058a1" width="468" height="453" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/Trb1QvxG5Rg0tQecb8nx0M9QAcQmj8buSeT3eHlQ_1e_qnK9J3STkkl95IQRTRBvEc5pZHqlrBaxBCIYDs8UAuBk2Bj0qX4imCrthEhlealEldV46JuOePkT8jHrC6CPzS71-s4b7IU"><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/13/2017 04:18 PM, Maruyama, Takashi wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Any comments are welcome.
Takashi
-----Original Message-----
From: Maruyama, Takashi
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 10:26 AM
To: Bradley T Yale (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:btu29@wildcats.unh.edu">btu29@wildcats.unh.edu</a>); 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
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Hps-analysis@jlab.org">Hps-analysis@jlab.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>