Difference between revisions of "SoLID Ecal Weekly 20230601"

From solidwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Discussion on Cooking with Updated Tracking== *Presentation by Mike: **with updated/latest tracking, the projected position on SC-D based on the best track, for about 20% o...")
 
(→‎Discussion on Cooking with Updated Tracking)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
*Presentation by Mike:  
 
*Presentation by Mike:  
 
**with updated/latest tracking, the projected position on SC-D based on the best track, for about 20% of events is still outside the SC-D size (in y). For these 20%, the "best 10" tracks are stored. About 10% has a track passing through SC-C but not identified as the best track, while the remaining 10% have no track passing through SC-C.
 
**with updated/latest tracking, the projected position on SC-D based on the best track, for about 20% of events is still outside the SC-D size (in y). For these 20%, the "best 10" tracks are stored. About 10% has a track passing through SC-C but not identified as the best track, while the remaining 10% have no track passing through SC-C.
−
**GEM x minus EC cluster x has resolution of 26 mm (same for y).
+
**efficiency for L/R of GEM still does not look equal. Xinzhan: the mechanism has been implemented for efficiency correction but need careful gain-matching study. Will be busy for the next 3 weeks (FTBF beam test) but can look into this afterwards.
 +
 
 +
**Questions:
 +
***how do efficiency and accuracy affect our detector PID study?
 +
***would ECal cluster-assisted GEM tracking be useful for SoLID running? Xinzhan: our algorithm is SBS-based, Weizhi's is not the same.
 +
 
 +
**GEM x minus EC cluster x (and y) look similar as before.
 +
**add target information to track choice. Xinzhan: using angle cut (based on Ye's simulation) which has some information
 +
**Xinzhan's suggestion: go through 10 tracks, choose track passing through the scintillator/trigger detector and choose track coming from the target. Should increase from 10 to 20 or 50.
 +
 
 +
*Presentation by Darren:
 +
*Presentation by Spencer:
 +
**MIP peak for shower: width very different (data wider than sim)
 +
**need to fit the peak
 +
 
 +
*Cooking
 +
**pulse deconvolution -- Jixie started from Hall A code and adapted it to our decoder. So far it works for 3 pulses for Shower, but not so well for scintillators (pulse shape is not good or consistent if the light yield is low). Alexandre: will be copying the code to NPS: just for calorimeter.
 +
 
 +
**Hall C has edge-finding at 4ns/64 grid -- Ye will look into it and "grab" the code.
 +
 
 +
*sim/data comparison from Ye:
 +
**PS for multi-trigger runs not understood when PS is not zero;
 +
**artifact of simulation, electron drops too fast at higher end, MIP alignment? resolution??
 +
 
 +
**

Revision as of 10:53, 1 June 2023

Discussion on Cooking with Updated Tracking

  • Presentation by Mike:
    • with updated/latest tracking, the projected position on SC-D based on the best track, for about 20% of events is still outside the SC-D size (in y). For these 20%, the "best 10" tracks are stored. About 10% has a track passing through SC-C but not identified as the best track, while the remaining 10% have no track passing through SC-C.
    • efficiency for L/R of GEM still does not look equal. Xinzhan: the mechanism has been implemented for efficiency correction but need careful gain-matching study. Will be busy for the next 3 weeks (FTBF beam test) but can look into this afterwards.
    • Questions:
      • how do efficiency and accuracy affect our detector PID study?
      • would ECal cluster-assisted GEM tracking be useful for SoLID running? Xinzhan: our algorithm is SBS-based, Weizhi's is not the same.
    • GEM x minus EC cluster x (and y) look similar as before.
    • add target information to track choice. Xinzhan: using angle cut (based on Ye's simulation) which has some information
    • Xinzhan's suggestion: go through 10 tracks, choose track passing through the scintillator/trigger detector and choose track coming from the target. Should increase from 10 to 20 or 50.
  • Presentation by Darren:
  • Presentation by Spencer:
    • MIP peak for shower: width very different (data wider than sim)
    • need to fit the peak
  • Cooking
    • pulse deconvolution -- Jixie started from Hall A code and adapted it to our decoder. So far it works for 3 pulses for Shower, but not so well for scintillators (pulse shape is not good or consistent if the light yield is low). Alexandre: will be copying the code to NPS: just for calorimeter.
    • Hall C has edge-finding at 4ns/64 grid -- Ye will look into it and "grab" the code.
  • sim/data comparison from Ye:
    • PS for multi-trigger runs not understood when PS is not zero;
    • artifact of simulation, electron drops too fast at higher end, MIP alignment? resolution??
Retrieved from "https://solid.jlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=SoLID_Ecal_Weekly_20230601&oldid=1586"