December 8, 2021 Calorimeter

From GlueXWiki
Revision as of 12:40, 16 December 2021 by Zisis (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Meeting Day/Time: every other WEDNESDAY at 11:00 a.m. JLab time

  1. To join via a Web Browser, go to the page [1]
  2. To join via Polycom room system go to the IP Address: ( and enter the meeting ID: 907185247.
  3. To join via phone, use one of the following numbers and the Conference ID: 907185247.
    • US or Canada: +1 408 740 7256 or
    • US or Canada: +1 888 240 2560
  4. Upon connection all microphones are automatically muted. To unmute your mike on a Polycom or equivalent unit, enter *4. Unmuting on a computer is trivial as there is a microphone button than can be clicked.
  5. More information on connecting to bluejeans is available.

Participant Direct Lines

  • JLab Phone in CC L207 is 757-269-7084 (usual room)
  • JLab Phone: in CC F326 is 757-269-6460
  • Phone in the Regina Video-conference Suite is 306-585-4204
  • Athens Phone: in Christina's office is 011-30-210-727-6947


  1. FCAL HDFCAL log book
  2. BCAL HDBCAL log book
  3. CCAL HDCCAL log book
  4. Calibrations: 2020 Data Production; RunPeriod-2019-11 Validation; Offline Monitoring Data Validation
  5. Photon Reconstruction Task Force

Goals for Calorimetry Group

  1. Determine preliminary photon reconstruction efficiencies as a function of E, phi and theta in data and simulation with a point-to-point precision of at least 5%.
  2. Measure systematics of pi0/eta mass calibration as a function of detector position to a precision of at least 5 MeV.
  3. Demonstrate agreement of photon reconstruction efficiency and resolution between data and simulation as a function of E, phi and theta to within 5%.

Action Items

  1. Short term CALWG Items
  2. Long term items
  3. Calorimeter work packages
  4. AI - BCAL Monitoring:
    1. Hydra Real-Time Dashboard
    2. Hydra 24-hr Monitoring Logs

Tentative Agenda

  1. Announcements
  2. Run Operations
    1. FCAL
    2. BCAL
    3. CCAL
  3. Calibration
  4. Monitoring
    1. BCAL LED
    2. BCAL (offline)
    3. FCAL (offline)
  5. Reconstruction
    1. Brief Follow up from photon gun study: Churamani[2]
  6. Simulations
  7. Action Items
  8. Any other business


Attendees: Igal, Tolga, Jon, Sean, Churamani, Elton, Matt, Malte, Rebecca, Karthik, Mark, Zisis

  1. Announcements: none.
  2. Run Operations: Zisis reported that FCAL and BCAL are running well. Elton asked for monitoring of BCAL humidity, which Zisis will do during his swing shift today.
    1. FCAL: nominal
    2. BCAL: nominal
    3. CCAL: not in beam
  3. Calibration:
    1. Mark checked basic 32 ns TDC offset, and 4ns ADC shifts were not seen. The former GlueX calibration is very good and can be used as is, and Karthik can proceed with a few iterations and check. Mark uses the drift chambers for the position in the BCAL; Naomi reported that the CDC is good; Marianna is preparing a new monitoring launch (#3). No need to do attenuation lengths for the BCAL at this stage. Calibration for full/MT target should be the same. Igal mentioned that field-on runs require the same quality as GlueX. Field-off runs do not work with the field-on procedure.
  4. Monitoring:
    1. BCAL LED: no report
    2. BCAL (offline): no report (no new batches)
    3. FCAL (offline): no report
  5. Reconstruction
    1. Churamani reported on his photon gun study, following Jon's method and scripts. θ = 8-130 deg, Δθ = 0, P=E=1 GeV, Δφ=360 deg. MC gun dips (due to chamber structures) are the same as seen by Jon. Drops in tag and probe efficiency are not mirrored by MC gun. The efficiency is defined as the fit (signal yield) divided by the generated number of events, Matt suggested that the fits for the last 5 bins on slide 7 be looked at carefully. Jon added that one can tighten the kinematics and look again.
  6. Simulations
    1. Rebecca presented work connected to the timing issue in the FCAL beam hole region. ω → 3 π events with high purity were used; fitted values were examined. The reconstructed efficiency of data (fall 2018) vs MC has discrepancies. 4 sets of square (labelled as K10, K5, K1..) rings of the FCAL were examined. Observed minus expected shower time was examined: data has shoulder that MC does not have.Small peaks at 2ns and 8ns appear on a couple of the K-rings. Matt suggested to split the study in <1GeV and >1GeV. Elton suggested to look at the time difference between the two photons from the π0. Matt added to look at the distribution of hit times (in cells that are part of the shower) because the clusterizer may reject hits that are out of time.
  7. Action Items: we will review these in early 2022.
  8. Any other business: none.