search

iLCSoft / ILDConfig

Package for iLCSoft configuration files related to the ILD detector simulation
GNU General Public License v3.0
3 stars 23 forks source link

ECal calibration ajustement #113

Closed rete closed 4 years ago

rete commented 4 years ago

BEGINRELEASENOTES

ENDRELEASENOTES

See https://agenda.linearcollider.org/event/8498/contributions/45417/attachments/35432/54933/photonCheck_v0201.pdf for details

danieljeans commented 4 years ago

thanks @rete : naively, the second calibration factor would be 2 times the first one (because the absorber thickness is 2 times thicker in the second "stack"). this doesn't seem to be the case, either before or after the change: e.g. 0.0129779714224 != 2 * 0.00638915356629 Is this intentional?

danieljeans commented 4 years ago

For the calibration for the first stack, the new numbers for barrel and endcap look OK. For the ring, it looks like the original calibration is about 0.50% too HIGH, so I would REDUCE it from 0.00668706922431 to 0.0066536339, rather than increase it together with the endcap.

rete commented 4 years ago

thanks @rete : naively, the second calibration factor would be 2 times the first one (because the absorber thickness is 2 times thicker in the second "stack"). this doesn't seem to be the case, either before or after the change: e.g. 0.0129779714224 != 2 * 0.00638915356629 Is this intentional?

I think the first stack has an additional absorber thickness in front of the first layer. Am I wrong? I guess this is how it is included in the calibration system.

For the calibration for the first stack, the new numbers for barrel and endcap look OK. For the ring, it looks like the original calibration is about 0.50% too HIGH, so I would REDUCE it from 0.00668706922431 to 0.0066536339, rather than increase it together with the endcap.

My bad! I need to correct it then. Thanks for your review.

danieljeans commented 4 years ago

Hi @rete,

On 4/17/20 1:45 AM, Ete Remi wrote:

thanks @rete <https://github.com/rete> :
naively, the second calibration factor would be 2 times the first
one (because the absorber thickness is 2 times thicker in the
second "stack").
this doesn't seem to be the case, either before or after the change:
e.g. 0.0129779714224 != 2 * 0.00638915356629
Is this intentional?

I think the first stack has an additional absorber thickness in front of the first layer. Am I wrong? I guess this is how it is included in the calibration system.

it's correct that the stack starts with absorber; however I don't see why this results in the ratio between calibration constants not being 2.0 ...

For the calibration for the first stack, the new numbers for
barrel and endcap look OK.
For the ring, it looks like the original calibration is about
0.50% too HIGH, so I would REDUCE it from 0.00668706922431 to
0.0066536339, rather than increase it together with the endcap.

My bad! I need to correct it then. Thanks for your review.

I think this previously just shadowed the endcap calibrations. It seems that this is no longer sufficient, I guess since their structure is now different: the ring is not a hybrid design in the current simulation model.

cheers, Daniel.

— You are receiving this because your review was requested. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/iLCSoft/ILDConfig/pull/113#issuecomment-614766680, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFTNC3YJ47GQ46TI6SKSXF3RM4YZXANCNFSM4MD2Q4SQ.

-- Daniel JEANS, Institute of Particle and Nuclear Studies (ILC group), KEK, Tsukuba, Japan tel: +81 029-864-5368 PHS: 4880 http://research.kek.jp/people/jeans/

rete commented 4 years ago

@danieljeans Does that look reasonable now? I yes, I'll merge this and start testing