Star-tpc-l mailing list

["Van Buren, Gene" <gene AT bnl.gov>]

Thanks, Yuri. I'll give that a try if I repeat the analysis. I still need to 
be careful about directly comparing the two RDOs due to different outages, 
and I need to avoid hits that are at the boundary between the two RDOs, but 
that function may help me compare bigger patches.

-Gene


> On Oct 18, 2024, at 5:19 PM, Fisyak, Yuri V <fisyak AT bnl.gov> wrote:
> 
> Int_t    rdo =      St_tpcRDOMapC ::instance()->rdo(sector,row, pad);
>  
> 
>                                                               Yuri Fisyak
> 
> STAR                                           Phone: +1 631 344 3913
> Brookhaven National Laboratory  Fax:    +1 631 344 4206
> 510A/1-161
> http://www.star.bnl.gov/~fisyak       E-mail: fisyak AT bnl.gov
>  
>  
>  
> From: star-tpc-l-request AT lists.bnl.gov <star-tpc-l-request AT lists.bnl.gov> 
> on behalf of Van Buren, Gene <gene AT bnl.gov>
> Date: Friday, October 18, 2024 at 5:00 PM
> To: Videbaek, Flemming <videbaek AT bnl.gov>
> Cc: Tonko Ljubicic <tonko.ljubicic AT gmail.com>, Ray, Robert L 
> <ray AT physics.utexas.edu>, Star-tpc L <Star-tpc-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> Subject: Re: [[Star-tpc-l] ] sector 24 RDO 4 issues.
> 
> Hi, all
> 
> Flemming asked me to look for any observable event-by-event differences, so 
> I looked at 6000 events from run 25292005 (taken this morning), file 
> st_physics_25292005_raw_2000014. I then counted hits, sampling from 4 
> patches:
> Patches 1 & 2:  rows (25-28) by 9 pads in RDO 3 and RDO 4
> Patches 3 & 4:  rows (37-40-) by 19 pads in RDO 3 and RDO 4
> I was conservative in my patch sizes because there are lots of dead areas 
> in both of these RDOs. Unfortunately, there's no function in StEvent that 
> says what RDO a hit was in (probably because hits can span RDOs for some 
> padrows). What I see:
> 
> First: no significant spans of events without hits in any of the RDO 
> patches. It should be noted that the events in the DAQ files are however 
> not immediately consecutive.
> 
> 
> 
> ========= Comparisons on patches 1 & 2 =========
> 
> Of all the 207607 hits found in these patches, 111835 (53.9%) are in the 
> RDO 3 patch and 95772 (46.1%) are in the RDO 4 patch.
> 
> Event-wise....
> 
> 1058 of 6000 events (17.6%) only had hits in the RDO 3 patch, none in the 
> RDO 4 patch
> ...and of these 1058, 182 (17.2%) had two events in a row like this
> 
> 691 of 6000 events (11.5%) only had hits in the RDO 4 patch, none in the 
> RDO 3 patch
> ...and of these 691, 74 (10.7%) had two events in a row like this
> 
> 3983 of 6000 events (66.4%) had hits in both patches, and in those events 
> the number of hits in the two patches was roughly 52.4% in RDO 3 and 47.6% 
> in RDO 4
> 
> 
> 
> ========= Comparisons on patches 3 & 4 =========
> 
> Of all the 229001 hits found in these patches, 156177 (68.2%) are in the 
> RDO 3 patch and 72824 (31.4%) are in the RDO 4 patch.
> 
> Event-wise....
> 
> 1015 of 6000 events (16.9%) only had hits in the RDO 3 patch, none in the 
> RDO 4 patch
> ...and of these 1015, 169 (16.7%) had two events in a row like this
> 
> 619 of 6000 events (10.3%) only had hits in the RDO 4 patch, none in the 
> RDO 3 patch
> ...and of these 619, 61 (9.9%) had two events in a row like this
> 
> 4119 of 6000 events (68.7%) had hits in both patches, and in those events 
> the number of hits in the two patches was roughly 51.5% in RDO 3 and 48.5% 
> in RDO 4
> 
> 
> 
> ========= Conclusions =========
> 
> 1) The probabilities for seeing zero hits in RDO 4 patches is significantly 
> higher than for RDO 3! This appears to be a real difference.
> 
> 2) The probabilities for two events in a row without hits in any of the 
> patches is reasonably consistent with their single event probabilities 
> repeating randomly, i.e. there is no clear sign in this data of RDO 4 being 
> dead for spans of time.
> 
> 3) While the strongest bias appears to be seeing no hits in a patch in RDO 
> 4 vs. RDO 3, there is also a weaker bias towards more hits in RDO 3 when 
> there are hits in both RDOs.
> 
> 4) My over-arching conclusion is that it doesn't appear to be that RDO 4 is 
> dead for certain events, but rather that RDO 4's efficiency for finding 
> hits is simply lower overall, for all events. That would be consistent with 
> the cut-off for zero suppression for RDO 4 being wrong by a small amount 
> for the entire run.
> 
> 
> 
> ========= Offline cluster finder =========
> 
> With that final conclusion in mind, I repeated the above analysis running 
> the offline cluster finder on 198 events from file 
> st_physics_adc_25292005_raw_1800005. The poor statistics don't allow for 
> precise conclusions, but the percentages are consistent with the findings 
> from the online-found clusters shown above: the biases are still very much 
> present.
> 
> 
> 
> Hope that helps, and I hope I didn't make any typos with all those numbers!
> -Gene
> 
> 
> 
> > On Oct 16, 2024, at 5:04 PM, videbaek <videbaek AT bnl.gov> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi tonko for reference the normal sector 24 offline looks like
> > the attached plot
> > 
> > 
> > On 2024-10-16 16:53, videbaek wrote:
> >> Hi Lanny
> >> I can confirm your observation. The last run in the fill of day 089
> >> 289061 and that is bad,
> >> but for the next fill as you sya 290008.
> >> It turns out to be very hard to see the issue in the online plots
> >> attach are the cluster plot for sector 24 in run289061, so we really
> >> don't have any tools to see this online, but only after fast offline.
> >> Tonko is there anything in the logs?
> >> So in both cases the problem was fixed after a beam dump, but not 
> >> between runs.
> >> The short runs done were setRHICclock and emccheck , can this do 
> >> something?
> >> Flemming
> >> On 2024-10-16 16:08, Ray, Robert L wrote:
> >>> Hi Flemming:
> >>> Unfortunately, the low number of hits in sector 24, RDO 4 is
> >>> back again starting with run 25289050 for the rest of day 289.
> >>> In the few runs I have looked at in today's data (290), the
> >>> problem seems to have gone away.
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Lanny
> >>> -------------------------
> >>> From: videbaek <videbaek AT bnl.gov>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 1:18 PM
> >>> To: Star-tpc L <Star-tpc-l AT lists.bnl.gov>; Ray, Robert L
> >>> <ray AT physics.utexas.edu>
> >>> Subject: Re: sector 24 RDO 4 issues.
> >>> Hi
> >>> Tonko pointed out that current runs don't have this problem. So I went
> >>> back at looked at the TPC offline QA
> >>> and see clearly that the issues on sector 24 itpc 4 RDO was present
> >>> over
> >>> many daya
> >>> first bad run 283030 last bad run 285046  since 286003 all good.
> >>> The most peculiar is that nothing special is reported in the elog from
> >>> last bad to first good
> >>> =no pedestal, no power cycling, no reboot on DAQ.
> >>> -single beam run 285047
> >>> -blue beam dumped 22:43 10/11
> >>> -Run 25286001 - setRHICClock  00:15 10/12
> >>> - Run 25286002 - emc-check and 56*56 injected
> >>> - run 25286003 Au-Au  good run
> >>> Was anything done to tpc's during this time? Can one check in log
> >>> messages for tpc?
> >>> best Flemming
> >>> On 2024-10-11 17:03, videbaek wrote:
> >>>> In the fast offline QA Lanny pointed out that it seems sector 4 has
> >>>> fewer hits and this has been the case since Monday.
> >>>> After today’s QA-meeting I got a root file with all the  the
> >>>> information with various information and looked at
> >>>> 1) charge per pad/row
> >>>> 2)cluster charge per pad/row
> >>>> I focused on row 39 which has two region from rdo 3 and rdo 4. From
> >>>> physics point of view they should have same #hits and charge per pad
> >>> ,
> >>>> in average.
> >>>> The file is from run 25283030 in FastOffline,
> >>>> The attached file has some additional comments , discussions, and
> >>> plots
> >>>> Thanks to Gene for providing the complete QA root file.
> >>>> best Flemming
> >>> --
> >>> Flemming Videbaek
> >>> senior scientist, emeritus
> >>> videbaek @ bnl.gov
> >>> Brookhaven National Lab
> >>> Physics Department
> >>> Bldg 510D
> >>> Upton, NY 11973
> >>> phone: 631-344-4106
> >>> cell     :  631-681-1596
> > 
> > -- 
> > Flemming Videbaek
> > senior scientist, emeritus
> > videbaek @ bnl.gov
> > Brookhaven National Lab
> > Physics Department
> > Bldg 510D
> > Upton, NY 11973
> > 
> > phone: 631-344-4106
> > cell     :  631-681-1596<Screenshot 2024-10-16 at 17.03.17.png>
>