2009.10.20 Sampling fraction problem: full STAr vs. EEMC stand alone geometry

For the previous study click here

Monte-Carlo setup:

• One photon per event
• EEMC only and Full STAR geometry configurations with LOW_EM option
  (using Victor's geometry fix)
• Throw particles flat in eta (1.08, 2.0), phi (0, 2pi), and pt (6-10 GeV)
• Using A2Emaker to get reconstructed Tower/SMD energy
  (no EEMC SlowSimulator in chain)
• Vertex z=0
• ~50K/per particle type
• Non-zero energy: 3 sigma above pedestal

Geometry configurations and notations (shown in the center of the plot):

1. eemc-cvs: EEMC only with geometry file from CVS (cAir-fixed)
2. full-cvs: Full STAR with geometry file from CVS (cAir-fixed)
3. eemc-j: EEMC only with Jason geometry file
4. full-j: Full STAR with Jason geometry file

Figure 1: Average energy in SMD-u plane vs. position of the thrown photon

SMD v (left) and u (right) sampling fraction (E_smd/E_thrown) vs. E_thrown

Figure 2: Sampling fraction (E_tower^total/E_thrown) vs. position of the thrown photon

Sampling fraction (E_tower^total/E_thrown) vs. E_thrown

Figure 3: Number of towers above threshold vs. position of the thrown photon

Number of towers above threshold vs. E_thrown

Other EEMC layers: pre-shower, postshower

Figure 4: (left) Pre-shower1 and (right) Pre-shower2 sampling fraction vs. E_thrown

Figure 5: (left) High tower sampling fraction and (right) residual energy, [E_tot-E_3x3]/E_thrown, vs. E_thrown