SoLID Ecal Weekly 20230608

Update from Tuesday Analysis/Sim Meeting

- looks like back/forward tracking can be added to level0 tree but then it needs to be passed onto level 1

Spencer update on TS3 study, suggestion:
- for data: use individual shower calibrated by MIP, not showersum directly
- for data, run 4680 had SC-A.and.SC-D and SC-A did not work well, should try the newer run
- for sim, separate the 4 particle types and weigh each by the cross section.

Darren/Zhiwen is working with Kishan on AI/ML
- how does AI/ML PID compare with classical PID for beam test sim?
- how well does the trained ML PID work for beam test data?
high-level question to be answered by our study:
- is AI/ML PID complimentary to classical method (thus assist classical method), or superior?

Update on prescale in data:
- (Jixie, W. Gu): CODA3.0 uses power(2,n-1)+1, so n=6 means 33 and for every 33 events, 1 is recorded.

with the PS understood, we now have very good agreement in ECal ShowerSum spectrum between different runs (different PS, trigger setup, and threshold). All should be within 15% of the simulation
the end point of electron sim has a sharp drop off but the data show slower drop off. Not sure what is causing the difference, anything missing in the simulation? The comparison used Run 4780. Points to check:
- how much is pileup?
- simulation threshold should account for Shower block normalization (different scaling factor)
- is the shashlyk length accurate?
- The MIP calibration is accurate to what level?
- peak-finding for individual shower block may not result in a soft-ware sum the same as the peak-finding of the hardware sum directly.

Spencer studied TS3 from SC-C.and.SC-D.and.ShowerSum runs -- SC-C, SC-D, and SHowerSum spectra need some study
Darren showed AI/ML on ECal and Cherenkov
- for Cherenkov we need to add position cut

anything else (all)