Re: pi0 reconstruction

[Alexander Somov <somov@jlab.org>]

Hi Mihajlo,

Many thanks, I get it.
It would be nice if you check responses for a new geometry
(when you have time). Who is going to be 'responsible' for
the calibration ?

Cheers,
       Sascha




On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Kornicer, Mihajlo wrote:

>
>
> 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>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>