Re: pi0 reconstruction

["Kornicer, Mihajlo" <mikornic@indiana.edu>]

Hi Sasha,

I am using the BCAL reconstruction code that is in the repository.
However, up to now, I have been using geometry description
for BCAL from December 2007 (revision 3083).
I hope you will not have those discrepancies with the old xml file.

Anyhow, recalibrating BCAL reconstruction for new readout is on our
to-do list.

Cheers,
Mihajlo


> Hi Matt,
>
> Thanks a lot for your commments. I think that you
> are absolutely right ( we should check/tune calibration).
>
> My main concern is that I might use not the latest
> 'official' version of the reconstruction, i.e., the
> latest version is not in the repository.
> ( I remember that sometime after the review Richard updated/fixed
> the BCAL geometry. There were no hits in the BCAL at all when
> I tried to use libs from the repository...)
>
> It would be very nice if someone, who has been using an 'official'
> reconstruction, check that his code (geant/reconstruction)
> corresponds to that in the svn.
>
> My understanding is that Mihajlo is also using his 'local'
> reconstruction (?)
>
> Cheers,
>       Sascha
>
>
> P.S. Later on I definitely could contribute to the calibration
> issues.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Matthew Shepherd wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Alexander,
>>
>> Both the BCAL segmentation and maybe the BCAL response has changed
>> since we tuned the BCAL reconstruction and "froze" it some time ago
>> for the studies done for the calorimetry review.  One thing that needs
>> to be done is to look at the results of the BCAL beam test and make
>> sure that our model for the response represents our best possible
>> knowledge.  Independent of clustering, I suspect the calibration might
>> be off if attention lengths or thresholds have changed.  I'm not
>> surprised that you are seeing a discrepancy at this level -- in
>> general we need to do a tune-up of the reconstruction code.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>>
>> On Apr 10, 2008, at 3:34 PM, Alexander Somov wrote:
>> > Hi Mihajlo,
>> >
>> > I have a quick question:
>> >
>> > I generate 3 GeV photons using a single
>> > track generator
>> > c particle  momentum   theta  phi  delta_momentum delta_theta
>> > delta_phi
>> >  KINE   101    3.0        70.    0.      0.              0.001   360.
>> >
>> > and obtain a 'strange' BCAL response; the total energy in the
>> > event obtained by summing up  DBCALMCResponse entries is
>> > shifted by about +150MeV (see plot attached to this mail).
>> >
>> > Do you know what the problem could be (do I miss smth, it seems that
>> > there
>> > is no noise simulated here) ?
>> >
>> > I checked out bcal reconstruction from a repository.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >       Sascha
>> >
>> >
>> > <gamma_3gev_70deg.ps>
>>
>>
>
>