Sphenix-calibration-l mailing list

[Luke Legnosky <luke.legnosky AT stonybrook.edu>]

Hi all,

I've uploaded a new version of my poster with updated plots that have been adjusted according to the comments given at today's approval meeting. Here is a link, 

https://sphenix-invenio.sdcc.bnl.gov/me/requests/23c856f3-b12d-4e4c-98fc-d5045a29713e

Please let me know what you think. Also, does someone know where I can go to print out my poster after it's been approved?

Best,

Luke

On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 7:47 PM Luke Legnosky <luke.legnosky AT stonybrook.edu> wrote:

Hi all,

After further review, I'm unsure whether to trust frame number as a marker for a single event. It seems that FEE channels with the same BCO do not necessarily have the same frame number. 

In light of this issue, I think it would be better to omit the pad row plot from my QM poster as I'm not sure I understand what it's showing me. Perhaps I can replace it with the plot attached to this email, which is just a zoomed out version of the baseline shift plot I have in my "Motivation" bubble? I figured it would still be illustrative to show people what the waveform looks like before zooming in on the shift. 

Please let me know what you think. 

On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 3:30 PM Luke Legnosky <luke.legnosky AT stonybrook.edu> wrote:

Hi Everyone,

Following the discussion at today's meeting, I rechecked the pad row plot in the "Motivation" section of my poster and found that I was using the local BCO number of a single FEE, so other FEEs were NOT being plotted. 

After speaking with Thomas, it is now my understanding that entries with the same frame number should correspond to the same event (excluding other tracking detectors where matching bco number is also important), so I've remade the plot with this in mind and attached it to this email. It's messier now so I'm not sure if it should still be included on my poster. Please let me know what you think. 

As a side note, I've also updated the profile plots to no longer be scaled and added them to my poster along with the other suggested corrections. Please see the newest version at, https://sphenix-invenio.sdcc.bnl.gov/me/requests/23c856f3-b12d-4e4c-98fc-d5045a29713e

Best,

Luke

On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 9:59 AM Luke Legnosky <luke.legnosky AT stonybrook.edu> wrote:

Hi all,

I uploaded a draft of my QM poster to Invenio along with an updated internal note. The link is at, (https://sphenix-invenio.sdcc.bnl.gov/me/requests/23c856f3-b12d-4e4c-98fc-d5045a29713e).

Following the distortions meeting from yesterday, I also decided to look deeper into Ross' comment about negative ADC values. I found that my histograms were mistakenly excluding negative ADCs and this has since been corrected. As a result, my 2D histogram plots from yesterday now have a baseline centered on zero as they should.

Since I'm no longer excluding negative ADCs, the ion tail regions in my max + neighboring pad profile plots have also become somewhat noisier. I'm not sure what is best to show at QM now so I've proposed two new versions of the ion tail plot in my internal note. Let me know which, if either, can be included on my poster.

I also played around with different scaling factors for the profile plots and decided to scale each curve by the peak ADC value of the largest profile (this is explained in my internal note). Hopefully this is more clear than the integral I was using before.

Lastly, I've added a plot showing the raw waveforms across an entire pad row for a single event (the same event and pad row that my baseline shift plot was taken from). None of the pads beyond 40 or so showed any significant signals above or below pedestal so I excluded them from the plot to focus on the region of active pads.

Please let me know your thoughts on these changes and the poster draft when you get the chance.

Best,

Luke