Difference between revisions of "SoLID Ecal Weekly 20230518"

From solidwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 11: Line 11:
  
 
==Discussion on Charged Particle PID Analysis Plan==
 
==Discussion on Charged Particle PID Analysis Plan==
 +
 +
(Xiaochao)
 +
 +
* Starting point: 18 deg runs:
 +
TS1 = CerSum
 +
TS2=  SC-B. and. SC-D
 +
TS3 = SC-A .and. SC-D → SC-C.and.SC-D.and.ShowerSum← need to change this in Darren’s report
 +
TS4 = ShowerSum
 +
 +
 +
*Select “center-hit” events:
 +
**use GEM projected position, check that the event has hits in all detectors of the trigger
 +
**use GEM tracking to select events that hit center of ECal
 +
 +
*Setup:
 +
**Obtain preshower and Shower MIP position, convert data to Edep (in MeV)
 +
***Preshower:
 +
***Shower:
 +
****weekly notes say MIP is about FADCint=400, Ye’s slide shows 40 MeV (check: 194*1.5mm*2MeV/cm=58 MeV? Reduction due to Birk effect?). So 1GeV electron → Edep=1GeV*20%sample=200 MeV= 5*40 MeV = 5 * 400 → 2000 in peak integral
 +
****from Ye’s slide, run 4780 threshold (120mV in TS4) shows up at FADCint=2000; MIP=400 int = 40 MeV Edep = 200 MeV momentum; so 2000 threshold (120mV) → 1 GeV electron; 180 mV → 1.5 GeV/c electron momentum
 +
****if clear correlation exists between Edep and electron energy, convert FADC peak integral to electron energy: 1 GeV electron energy = 2000 in peak integral
 +
 +
*PID:
 +
**use TS3 (or TS4?) compare Psh, Sh, and Cherenkov spectra with simulation
 +
***Trigger cuts need to be in simulation
 +
***could use 1 GeV energy (electron-energy equivalent) bin in ShowerSum (better using PSH+SH sum if calibrated)
 +
***apply Cherenkov cut to see if it makes sense, but I suspect we can’t use Cherenkov to define “clean” electron samples.
 +
***either with or without Cherenkov cut, apply 1D preshower cut, and 2D preshower+shower (normalized) cut, study electron efficiency and pion rejection.
  
 
==Discussion on AI/ML for PID==
 
==Discussion on AI/ML for PID==
  
 
==To Do List==
 
==To Do List==

Revision as of 15:55, 18 May 2023

SoLID ECal Weekly May 18, 2023

Discussion on Tracking

  • Presentation by Mike

Discussion on Simulation

  • Presentation by Ye

Discussion on Cherenkov

  • Presentation by Darren (simulation)
  • Presentation by Tim (data)

Discussion on Charged Particle PID Analysis Plan

(Xiaochao)

  • Starting point: 18 deg runs:

TS1 = CerSum TS2= SC-B. and. SC-D TS3 = SC-A .and. SC-D → SC-C.and.SC-D.and.ShowerSum← need to change this in Darren’s report TS4 = ShowerSum


  • Select “center-hit” events:
    • use GEM projected position, check that the event has hits in all detectors of the trigger
    • use GEM tracking to select events that hit center of ECal
  • Setup:
    • Obtain preshower and Shower MIP position, convert data to Edep (in MeV)
      • Preshower:
      • Shower:
        • weekly notes say MIP is about FADCint=400, Ye’s slide shows 40 MeV (check: 194*1.5mm*2MeV/cm=58 MeV? Reduction due to Birk effect?). So 1GeV electron → Edep=1GeV*20%sample=200 MeV= 5*40 MeV = 5 * 400 → 2000 in peak integral
        • from Ye’s slide, run 4780 threshold (120mV in TS4) shows up at FADCint=2000; MIP=400 int = 40 MeV Edep = 200 MeV momentum; so 2000 threshold (120mV) → 1 GeV electron; 180 mV → 1.5 GeV/c electron momentum
        • if clear correlation exists between Edep and electron energy, convert FADC peak integral to electron energy: 1 GeV electron energy = 2000 in peak integral
  • PID:
    • use TS3 (or TS4?) compare Psh, Sh, and Cherenkov spectra with simulation
      • Trigger cuts need to be in simulation
      • could use 1 GeV energy (electron-energy equivalent) bin in ShowerSum (better using PSH+SH sum if calibrated)
      • apply Cherenkov cut to see if it makes sense, but I suspect we can’t use Cherenkov to define “clean” electron samples.
      • either with or without Cherenkov cut, apply 1D preshower cut, and 2D preshower+shower (normalized) cut, study electron efficiency and pion rejection.

Discussion on AI/ML for PID

To Do List