sPHENIX EMCal discussion

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

Hi, Virginia

 

As you showed last Thu that set2 produced better resolution for UIUC low-eta runs than set4, we probably want to test Production_0715_EMCalSet2_HCalPR12 calibration for the high eta studies too.

 

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: Bailey, Virginia Ruth [mailto:vbailey2 AT illinois.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 5:12 PM
To: Huang, Jin <jhuang AT bnl.gov>; sphenix-emcal-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: RE: High Rapidity Testbeam Analysis

 

Hi Jin,

 

This was using the production Production_0510_MIP_set4_Cosmic.  

 

Best,

Virginia

---

From: Huang, Jin [jhuang AT bnl.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 1:48 PM
To: Bailey, Virginia Ruth; sphenix-emcal-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: RE: High Rapidity Testbeam Analysis

Hi, Virginia

 

Thanks for the quick follow up.

 

Meanwhile, I am wondering which production set you are using? In my test as attached, the linearity is above unity, as we would expect ( the energy scale is setup by eta=0 showers with lower sampling fraction than high-eta). The resolution point-to-point is similar. I was using production Production_0715_EMCalSet2_HCalPR12 (newest one on wiki), and same horoscope cuts. Martin’s temperature correction will further improve the high energy point’s resolution a bit.

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: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 12:32 PM
To: sphenix-emcal-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: [Sphenix-emcal-l] High Rapidity Testbeam Analysis

 

Hello all,

 

Attached are some slides detailing the analysis of the high rapidity runs from the testbeam.  The hodoscope cuts were chosen based on the mean energy by hodoscope cuts plots (shown on slide 3) as we have done before for the second scan data.  Due to the positioning of the blocks in these runs, the energy is spread much more in the horizontal direction, so I chose not to include any horizontal hodoscope cuts on the data.  Because of this, the high rapidity runs have more statistics than the scan 2 runs, causing the lower statistical error in the high rapidity resolution plot.  Looking at the 5 by 5 tower energy distributions, the energies are lower for the high rapidity runs than for the nominal runs, showing us that the high rapidity showers spread to an area larger than the 5 by 5 towers we've been looking at.  We suspect that this could be partially responsible for the higher resolution we see.

 

Let me know if you have any questions or comments.

 

Best,

Virginia