sPHENIX EMCal discussion

["Sickles, Anne M" <sickles AT illinois.edu>]

Here are the minutes from today’s meeting.  Please let me know of comments/questions/omissions.

Anne

EMCal cost reduction strategies:

regrouping EMCal towers: saves about $90 / EMCal channel eliminated assuming that the light collection and SiPMs count are not altered

—Jin notes that the 2D projective EMCal already has a reduced channel count compared to the 1D projective

—Jin will use pCDR simulations to evaluate the impact on hadron rejection with reduced granularity 

—old simulations will be used to make apples to apples comparisons

—strong concern for jet measurements in the scenario where the EMCal towers are built out to |eta| < 0.5 only

task list:

great list from Jin, names filled in in real time and list posted to the wiki:

https://wiki.bnl.gov/sPHENIX/index.php/T-1044

Mike Skoby: calibration

—working on understanding of variation of MIP peak locations with calibration sets shown on slide 3

—ideas are to clean up the event selection (to reject non-MIP events) and to use timing information

—there are additional runs (from today) in the 180 rotated configuration (like set 2), Mike will analyze those and update the slides

—the peak location vs channel count on slide 5 is not understood 

—there is discussion about the possibility of temperature gradients causing this

—Mike will add set 2 (the 180 degree rotated runs) to this plot to see if the dependence is the same

—will also add the channel by channel temperature information to a similar plot to see if the trend is the same

Vera: analysis

current analysis shows a different resolution than earlier analyses by Vera and Jin (independently)

Jin’s plot in the wiki: https://wiki.bnl.gov/sPHENIX/index.php/File:T-1044_fouth_DrawPrototype2EMCalTower_Resolution_Run2042_col1_row2_5x5_Valid_HODO_center_col1_row2.png

(uses the same calibration, but a different (earlier) set of runs

—trying to understand the differences

—Vera and Jin will work together to optimize the Cherenkov cuts and implement the cut on the hodoscope

—other changes/differences in the analysis will be investigated and sent to the list

—both analyses were done using the calibrations from Mike (set 2)

Best,

Anne

On Apr 25, 2016, at 9:00 AM, Sickles, Anne M <sickles AT illinois.edu> wrote:

Hi,

We’ll meet tomorrow for the bi-weekly EMCal meeting at 3 ET.  The indico page with the bluejeans link is here:

https://indico.bnl.gov/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=2036

I would obviously like to discuss various aspects of the test beam.  I would like to hear about the calibration (Mike, Jin), analysis (Jin, Vera), and the status of the data taking and specifically is there any additional data we need to take (Craig, Sean, John H).

Have I forgotten anything?  Can the people named confirm that they can present?

Best,

Anne

--------------------------------------------------------------

Anne Sickles

Assistant Professor, Department of Physics

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

--------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Sphenix-emcal-l mailing list
Sphenix-emcal-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-emcal-l

--------------------------------------------------------------

Anne Sickles

Assistant Professor, Department of Physics

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

--------------------------------------------------------------