Star-tpc-l mailing list

[videbaek <videbaek AT bnl.gov>]

Thanks Gene,

I agree it seems unlikely there are event dependences.
As it shows up in the adc data too, it must be an issue in FEE/RDO
Flemming



On 2024-10-18 17:00, Van Buren, Gene wrote:
> 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>

--
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