Difference between revisions of "HDGeant4 Meeting, March 26, 2019"
From GlueXWiki
(→Agenda) |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
# [https://github.com/JeffersonLab/HDGeant4/issues Issues on GitHub] (all) | # [https://github.com/JeffersonLab/HDGeant4/issues Issues on GitHub] (all) | ||
# [https://github.com/JeffersonLab/HDGeant4/pulls Pull Requests on GitHub] (all) | # [https://github.com/JeffersonLab/HDGeant4/pulls Pull Requests on GitHub] (all) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Minutes == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Present: | ||
| + | * ''' JLab: ''' Alex Austregesilo, Thomas Britton, Sean Dobbs, Mark Ito (chair),Richard Jones, Simon Taylor | ||
| + | |||
| + | There is a [https://bluejeans.com/s/96_2v recording of this meeting] on the BlueJeans site. Use your JLab credentials to access it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Review of minutes from the last meeting === | ||
| + | |||
| + | We went over [[HDGeant4_Meeting,_March 12,_2019#Minutes|the minutes]] without significant comment. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Do-over on comparison studies === | ||
| + | |||
| + | Simon has run some single-particle gun simulations for both HDG3 and HDG4 on the OSG. He has not had a chance to look at them in detail yet. His initial impression is that differences are seen in calorimetry. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Further comparative studies of calorimeter response === | ||
| + | |||
| + | Richard showed some slides [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1IDw4LD2GhBpzam9E1V8LRBcb49Kb1V3GMTWR2Inw2V8/edit?usp=sharing some slides] describing extensions of his work on low-level comparisons of HDG3 and HDG4 for calorimetry. | ||
| + | * He looked at the residual non-linearity, albeit up to 8 GeV, for reconstructed shower energy in the FCAL. Agreement between HDG3 and HDG4 is very good now, at all energies. | ||
| + | * He has examined cluster time, relative to "RF". Both HDG3 and 4 show the same linear systematic dependence in relative time as a function of energy. | ||
| + | * For BCAL energy response, he showed the same residual non-linearity study as shown earlier for the FCAL. Here the qualitative agreement is good, with perhaps an 8 MeV upward shift of HDG4 relative to HDG3. The effect of energy leakage out the back of BCAL dominates the changes in the trends as polar angle moves from far forward to 90 degrees. | ||
| + | * For BCAL timing, he noted a difference in the algorithm used to get cluster timing between HDG3 and HDG4 | ||
| + | ** HDG3 uses energy-weighted average shower times | ||
| + | ** HDG4 uses the earliest hit per sector for times | ||
| + | * We noted that mcsmear smears the BCAL timing by 55 ps, not a lot. Richard sees this in his study. | ||
| + | * The difference in the BCAL algorithms does not make much apparent difference. He suggests we use energy weighted for both to be consistent. | ||
| + | * Richard is planning to deprecate the bcalSiPMUpHit and bcalSiPMDownHit elements in HDDM in favor of a single bcalTruthCell element that can serve information from both upsteam and downstream ends of the BCAL, | ||
| + | * There is still an issue that Alex sees with the ρ's albeit with charged tracks and not electromagnetic showers. Hopefully Simon's single-track studies will address it. | ||
Revision as of 13:25, 29 March 2019
HDGeant4 Meeting
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
3:00 pm
JLab: CEBAF Center, A110
BlueJeans: 968592007
Contents
Agenda
- Review of minutes from the last meeting
- Do-over on comparison studies
- Further comparative studies of calorimeter response
- Issues on GitHub (all)
- Pull Requests on GitHub (all)
Minutes
Present:
- JLab: Alex Austregesilo, Thomas Britton, Sean Dobbs, Mark Ito (chair),Richard Jones, Simon Taylor
There is a recording of this meeting on the BlueJeans site. Use your JLab credentials to access it.
Review of minutes from the last meeting
We went over the minutes without significant comment.
Do-over on comparison studies
Simon has run some single-particle gun simulations for both HDG3 and HDG4 on the OSG. He has not had a chance to look at them in detail yet. His initial impression is that differences are seen in calorimetry.
Further comparative studies of calorimeter response
Richard showed some slides some slides describing extensions of his work on low-level comparisons of HDG3 and HDG4 for calorimetry.
- He looked at the residual non-linearity, albeit up to 8 GeV, for reconstructed shower energy in the FCAL. Agreement between HDG3 and HDG4 is very good now, at all energies.
- He has examined cluster time, relative to "RF". Both HDG3 and 4 show the same linear systematic dependence in relative time as a function of energy.
- For BCAL energy response, he showed the same residual non-linearity study as shown earlier for the FCAL. Here the qualitative agreement is good, with perhaps an 8 MeV upward shift of HDG4 relative to HDG3. The effect of energy leakage out the back of BCAL dominates the changes in the trends as polar angle moves from far forward to 90 degrees.
- For BCAL timing, he noted a difference in the algorithm used to get cluster timing between HDG3 and HDG4
- HDG3 uses energy-weighted average shower times
- HDG4 uses the earliest hit per sector for times
- We noted that mcsmear smears the BCAL timing by 55 ps, not a lot. Richard sees this in his study.
- The difference in the BCAL algorithms does not make much apparent difference. He suggests we use energy weighted for both to be consistent.
- Richard is planning to deprecate the bcalSiPMUpHit and bcalSiPMDownHit elements in HDDM in favor of a single bcalTruthCell element that can serve information from both upsteam and downstream ends of the BCAL,
- There is still an issue that Alex sees with the ρ's albeit with charged tracks and not electromagnetic showers. Hopefully Simon's single-track studies will address it.
