SoLID Ecal Weekly 20230601

Discussion on Cooking with Updated Tracking

Presentation by Mike: Tracking with new updates
- with updated/latest tracking, which saves the 10 best tracks: the projected position on SC-D based on the 1 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 (and y) look similar as before.
- 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.

Discussions:
- how do efficiency and accuracy affect our detector PID study? -- TBD
- would ECal cluster-assisted GEM tracking be useful for SoLID running? Xinzhan: our algorithm is SBS-based, Weizhi's is not the same. So there is little value in using ECal cluster-assisted tracking, especially given our mixed-particle study (ECal cluster works only for electrons).

Suggestions and To/Do:
- add target information to track choice. Xinzhan: currently using angle cut (based on Ye's simulation) which has some information, but not the same.
- 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. Mike will look into this and develop something.

Report from Spencer: showed data vs. sim for TS3, no trigger cut yet, MIP aligned "by eye". Comments:
- MIP peak for shower: width very different (data wider than sim)
- to get better alignment, may need to fit the peak
- add simulation trigger cuts
- look into rate (normalization) of data vs. simulation.

Report from Darren: started SULI this week
- suggestions: discuss with JLab staff on AI/ML, limited results on the current [... something...] matrix may be limited by the algorithm, collect suggestions for what algorithm to use and then try them out.
- if need more simulation (that can't be done by Ye in a straightforward way) is needed, or if there is extra time, can spend time to learn how to run simulation.

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. Jixie could then implement. (Note: Jixie's peak finding code already has start/max/end time of the peak but this is only using 4ns sampling time)

From Ye:

PS for multi-trigger runs not understood when PS is not zero; (post plot)
artifact of simulation, electron drops too fast at higher end, MIP alignment? resolution?? (post plot)