sPHENIX EMCal discussion

["Huang, Jin" <jhuang AT bnl.gov>]

Hi, Virginia

 

Nice job! Could you show the linearity too?

 

> 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)?

 

I think the difference on e-shower calibrations will be

1.     reducing the tail so we do not need to do a high-side emphasized fit. The change in tail is illustrated here:  https://wiki.bnl.gov/sPHENIX/index.php/File:T-1044_Fifth_Calirbated_DrawPrototype2EMCalTower_ResolutionRecalib_RunSummary.png

2.     potentially relax on the horoscope cuts by balancing gains between neighboring towers. The preliminary plot used a 3-figer-wide hodoscope cut for both H and V directions.

 

Cheers,

 

Jin

 

 

______________________________

 

Jin HUANG

 

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Physics Department, Bldg 510 C

Upton, NY 11973-5000

 

Office: 631-344-5898

Cell:   757-604-9946

______________________________

 

From: sphenix-emcal-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov [mailto:sphenix-emcal-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov] On Behalf Of Bailey, Virginia Ruth
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 12:50 PM
To: sphenix-emcal-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: [Sphenix-emcal-l] Second energy scan analysis

 

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