sPHENIX EMCal discussion

[Megan Connors <meganEconnors AT gmail.com>]

Hi Virginia,

Very nice work!

I was wondering if you have any ideas why the black points are less smooth. I don't know what the chi^2 was for the preliminary analysis but it looks like it would be much better than your 26/6. It seems the points that don't follow the fit so nicely have worse statistics but systematically give a poorer resolution. Is this the source of the issue? Any possible improvements?

Best,

-Megan

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Bailey, Virginia Ruth <vbailey2 AT illinois.edu> wrote:

Hello all,

We have put together a comparison of the UIUC analysis second energy scan data with that of the preliminary analysis.  Currently we are using MIP calibration data, but we plan to switch to e-shower calibration when it is available.  For the preliminary analysis, the resolution decreased with the switch to the e-shower calibration.  Our current analysis gives data that is very close the the preliminary e-shower data, so the question is do we expect a similar resolution improvement with the new e-shower calibrations or is the resolution as good as it will get (as the preliminary e-shower calibration data was already very close to simulation data)?

Best,

Virginia

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