sPHENIX EMCal discussion

[Joe Osborn <jdosbo AT umich.edu>]

Hi Yongsun,

Thank you for the comments, they are very helpful. One comment to your comment:

Fig. 3.6  Similar plot but as a function of cluster position will be good for comparison

In principle this is true, but the hodoscope and truth vertex distributions are more precise as they don't include effects from clustering and/or the calorimeter. Therefore the fact that we already see a discrepancy at this stage in the electron matching indicates that the problem is not with the clustering and rather with the simulation itself. So the plot as a function of cluster position is extraneous since it includes additional effects from e.g. the clustering.

Thanks again for the comments!

Joe

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

Joe Osborn

Ph.D Candidate

University of Michigan

jdosbo AT umich.edu

(859) 433-8738

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Kim, Yongsun <ykim11 AT illinois.edu> wrote:

Dear Joe and Jin.

Hi.

In general the draft seems to be written well and clearly delivers the contents.  

I attached some suggestion in changing the section structure and several 2 cents. 

Best regards,

Yongsun

* Sec. 2.3

Make a new section between 2.2 and 2.3 with title "Dataset" and move the paragraph of L99-L107 to here.   And the section name of 2.1 can be re-named as Software 

* L84 - L89.  

Move the website addressed to the Reference section and use quotation in the main text.  I don't know what kind of style we would use, but in case of APA you can check here : 

http://www.easybib.com/reference/guide/apa/website

 

[If we keep hodoscope dependent correction]

* First of all, please describe the details of the hodoscope setup.  Is that installed in front of the EMcal? or back of it?  How far is it away from the blocks?

* A plot of the distribution of the hodoscope signals, which we can see the signals and MIP backgrounds, to justify the cut we are using. 

* I think L172-173 and L190-191 are very important and I suggest to move to earlier in the text, maybe in introduction. 

For me, before arriving to this sentence, it was not clear whether the hodoscope would be installed in front of EMcal of sPHENIX...

* In all plots, adding labels like "Hodoscope corrected" or "Data driven Corrected" will be helpful to lead readers. 

* Make a separate sections for the results of First Joint dataset and Thrid Joint datastet.   Focus on the reuslts on First joing dataste and then show the plots for 3rd joint result and brief explain how the resolution is changed. 

* Figure 2.3   

The right bottom plot. Start X axis from 0. 

Enlarge the labels and titles.

* Figure 2.4  

Use the full width for this figure. It's hard to read texts. 

* Fig. 2.5,2.6 

Use larger plots.   

* Fig. 2.10  

Remove the statistics box from all panels, and enlarge the X title. 

L 193.  what is definition of p and delta(p) in the equation? 

L204. Justify why we used 1 millirad angular divergence. 

Fig. 3.6  Similar plot but as a function of cluster position will be good for comparison

Fig. 3.5, 3.6  stretch the figure horizontally.  

L273 - L282.   Maybe need some English revision.  It sounds like a spken language rather than written one. 

Section 4, 5

Maybe you can merge "Result" and "Conclustions and Public Plots" section into "Conclusion" section.

On Sep 27, 2017, at 12:32 PM, Joe Osborn <jdosbo AT umich.edu> wrote:

Dear sPHENIX EMCalers,

The test beam writing and analysis committee has received word from Dave and Gunther about the process for getting publicly approved plots to show from the 2017 test beam analysis so that Megan Connors can show our ongoing work in her IEEE talk. Attached to this email is a first draft of the analysis note documenting the test beam analysis and results. 

As a reminder, the plan is for the results to be public for Megan's IEEE talk on October 26th. The goal of her talk is to document, as well as advertise, the continued progress that we have made since the 2016 prototype. The results will then be published in a Conference Proceedings and not in a full peer reviewed journal due to the condition of the block boundaries in the 2017 test beam. The 2018 test beam results will then be the final results and supersede the Conference Proceedings. This was discussed in the EMCal meeting on September 12th.

The approval schedule will look something like the following, as has been passed on to us by Dave and Gunther. The analysis note first needs approval by the conveners of the EMCal group, after which the content of the note is to be presented at one of the fortnightly sPHENIX general meetings. The plan is to present the content of this note at the next general meeting on Friday, October 6th. This would mean that any comments from the EMCal group on the note would be appreciated by Tuesday, October 3rd at our next weekly EMCal meeting. These comments can then be implemented in time for the general meeting on the 6th of October. We can of course also discuss the note at the EMCal meeting on the 3rd. After the presentation in the general meeting, the note will go through a 1 week collaboration review (presumably the following week), similarly to some of the previous notes that have gone through e.g. the cold QCD or jet structure topical groups.

Talk to everyone at the next EMCal meeting, 

Joe Osborn for the 2017 Test Beam Committee

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

Joe Osborn

Ph.D Candidate

University of Michigan

jdosbo AT umich.edu

(859) 433-8738

<t1044_2017_EMCal_AnalysisNote.pdf>_______________________________________________
sPHENIX-EMCal-l mailing list
sPHENIX-EMCal-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-emcal-l