Update 2016-06-02
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Check efficiency distribution in p-side and n-side :

fire efficiency	fire times

2apply Efficiency cut on lower limit
Cuts : 0.0001<Eff<0.028

==========================
   BAD CHANNEL SUMMARY   
1.Include all ladders.    
  Bad in P-Side : 109257, Ratio = 44.4568%
  Bad in N-Side : 98614, Ratio = 40.1261%
2.Good ladder Only.    
  Bad in P-Side : 84681, Ratio = 38.2853%
  Bad in N-Side : 74038, Ratio = 33.4735%
==========================

Tables :
/star/u/zhoulong/data02/DEV14/SST/offline_r16/BadChannelMasking/Compare_With_Jim
/Strip_Fire_Eff_Method/Eff_Method/Text/

note : All files in this dir already applied lower limit cut.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Check Jim's method and My method

Work Dir:  /star/u/zhoulong/data02/DEV14/SST/offline_r16/BadChannelMasking/Compare_With_Jim/Compare_My_and_Jim

Jim's bad chip status :
 

Look at Fire Efficiency from data

• Check fire efficiency in each strip

• Eff = #fire times / (All*2 ), the maximum is 0.5

• Set a cut on the fire efficiency(>0.03) to identify the bad strips.

More plots can be found in here :

  BAD CHANNEL SUMMARY   
Eff cuts > 0.03
1.Include all ladders.    
  Bad in P-Side : 25994, Ratio = 10.577%
  Bad in N-Side : 26176, Ratio = 10.651%
2.Good ladder Only.    
  Bad in P-Side : 1418, Ratio = 0.641095%
  Bad in N-Side : 1600, Ratio = 0.72338%


Check Results

Comments

• The three method have large discrepancy, I don't know whta's going on. 

• but it's seems the bad channel in pedestal run and physics run are different. 

• I believe the fire-eff method will be the best one .