Monte-Carlo setup:

- One photon per event
**Disabled SMD layers (EXPS EBLS EFLS)**in Jason geometrygeometry configurations **with and without 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):

**full-cvs-noEM**(dashed): CVS geometry (cAir-fixed) without LOW_EM option**full-cvs-EM**(solid): CVS geometry (cAir-fixed) with LOW_EM option**full-j-NoEM-noL**: Jason geometry (disabled 3-new SMD layers) without LOW_EM option**full-j-EM-noL**: Jason geometry (disabled 3-new SMD layers) with LOW_EM option

**Figure 1:** Distribution of the sampling fraction (total energy in EEMC)

**Figure 2:** Sampling fraction (total energy in EEMC) vs. thrown energy

**Figure 3:** Sampling fraction (total energy in EEMC) vs. position of the thrown photon

Monte-Carlo setup:

- Throwing one photon per event
- Full STAR geometry (y2006g) configurations with and without LOW_EM option.

Note: LOW_EM cuts are listed at the bottom of this page,

and some related discussion can be found in this phana thread - Throw particles flat in eta (-1,1), phi (0, 2pi), and energy (30 +/- 0.5 GeV)
- Vertex z=0
- 50K/per particle type

Geometry configurations and notations:

**BEMC-noLOW_EM**: Full STAR y2006g without LOW_EM option**BEMC-LOW_EM**: Full STAR y2006g with LOW_EM option

data base settings (same settings in bfc.C (Jan's trick) and in my MuDst reader):

dbMk->SetFlavor("sim","bemcPed");

dbMk->SetFlavor("Wbose","bemcCalib");

dbMk->SetFlavor("sim","bemcGain");

dbMk->SetFlavor("sim","bemcStatus");

dbMk->SetFlavor("sim","bprsPed");

dbMk->SetFlavor("Wbose","bprsCalib");

dbMk->SetFlavor("sim","bprsGain");

dbMk->SetFlavor("sim","bprsStatus");

dbMk->SetFlavor("sim","bsmdePed");

dbMk->SetFlavor("Wbose","bsmdeCalib");

dbMk->SetFlavor("sim","bsmdeGain");

dbMk->SetFlavor("sim","bsmdeStatus");

dbMk->SetFlavor("sim","bsmdpPed");

dbMk->SetFlavor("Wbose","bsmdpCalib");

dbMk->SetFlavor("sim","bsmdpGain");

dbMk->SetFlavor("sim","bsmdpStatus");

Note: for BEMC ideal pedSigma set to 0, so effectively

there is no effect when I apply 3-sigma threshold above pedestal.

**Figure 1:** E_reco/E_thrown distribution.

E_reco is the total energy in the BEMC towers from mMuDstMaker->muDst()->muEmcCollection()

E_thrown energy of the thrown photon from tne GEant record

No cut (yet) applied to exclude otliers in the average

Outliers in E_reco/E_thrown

**Figure 2:** Average E_reco/E_thrown vs. thrown photon eta (left) and phi (right)

Average is taken over a slice in eta or phi (no gaussian fits)

**Figure 3:** Average E_reco/E_thrown vs. thrown position (eta and phi)

Left: without LOW_EM option; right: with LOW_EM option

No cut applied to exclude otliers

Monte-Carlo setup:

- One photon per event
**Disabled SMD layers (EXPS EBLS EFLS)**in Jason geometry**Alter the ELED block**(lead absorber plate) in Jason geometry file- Full STAR geometry configurations
**with and without 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

**Figure 1:** Sampling fraction (total energy in EEMC)

- Solid symbols and lines present results with LOW_EM option

Note: the black are the same in left and right plots - Open/dashed symbols and lines - results without LOW_EM option
- Upper plots - distribution of the sampling fcation
- Lower plots - Sampling fcation vs. thrown photon energy

- Left plots: CVS geometry vs. Jason with removed extra SMD layers.

ELED block is the same in all 4 cases, and is taken from CVS file.

in red: CVS geometry, in black - Jason geometry - Right plots:

Jason with new ELED block (in red) vs. Jason with ELED block from CVS (in black)

Extra SMD layers are removed in all 4 cases

**Figure 2:** Sampling fraction (total energy in EEMC)

**black**: same black as in Fig. 1, upper plots

**red**: EEMC geometry with Material PbAlloy isvol=0

(modification suggested by Jason in this post)

Monte-Carlo setup:

- One photon per event
**Disabled/Enabled SMD layers (EXPS EBLS EFLS)**in Jason geometry**Alter the ELED block**with pure lead- Full STAR geometry configurations
**with and without 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

**dashed/open red**(j-noEM,noL,Pb):

full STAR y2006, no LOW_EM, Jason EEMC geometry without new SMD layers, pure lead in ELED block**solid red**(j-EM,noL,Pb):

full STAR y2006, LOW_EM, Jason EEMC geometry without new SMD layers, pure lead in ELED block**dashed/open black**(j-noEM,Pb):

full STAR y2006, no LOW_EM, Jason EEMC geometry with new SMD layers, pure lead in ELED block**solid black**(j-EM,Pb):

full STAR y2006, LOW_EM, Jason EEMC geometry with new SMD layers, pure lead in ELED block

**Figure 1:** Tower sampling fraction distribution

**Figure 2:** Tower sampling fraction vs. thrown energy

**Figure 3:** Tower sampling fraction vs. position of the thrown photon

**Figure 4:** Pre1, pre2, post and SMD sampling fraction distribution

**Figure 5:** Pre1, pre2, post and SMD sampling fraction vs. thrown energy

**Figure 6:** SMD-v shower shapes

**Figure 7:** SMD-v shower shape ratios

**Figure 8:** Number of SMD-u strips

**Figure 9:** Number of SMD-v strips

**Figure 10:** Energy ractio of 2x1 to 3x3 cluster vs. gamma-jet data

**Figure 11:** Pre-shower1 energy

**Figure 12:** Pre-shower2 energy

**Figure 13:** Post-shower energy

**Figure 14:** SMD-v energy

**Figure 15:** Number of towers

**Figure 16:** Tower Sampling fraction: LOW_EM option and pre-shower migration

Monte-Carlo setup:

- Throwing one photon per event
**Full y2009 STAR geometry**configurations with and without LOW_EM option.

Note: LOW_EM cuts are listed at the bottom of this page,

and some related discussion can be found in this phana thread- Throw particles flat in eta (-0.95,0.05) amd (0.05, 0.95), phi (0, 2pi), and energy (30 +/- 0.5 GeV)
- bfc.C options:

trs,fss,y2009,Idst,IAna,l0,tpcI,fcf,ftpc,Tree,logger,ITTF,Sti,MakeEvent,McEvent,

geant,evout,IdTruth,tags,bbcSim,tofsim,emcY2,EEfs,

GeantOut,big,-dstout,fzin,-MiniMcMk,beamLine,clearmem,eemcDB,VFPPVnoCTB - Use
**fixed (7%) sampling fraction in StEmcSimpleSimulator.cxx**

mSF[0] = 1/0.07;

mSF[1] = 0.;

mSF[2] = 0.; - Vertex z=0
- 50K/per particle type

Geometry configurations and notations:

**BEMC-noLOW_EM**: Full STAR y2009 without LOW_EM option**BEMC-LOW_EM**: Full STAR y2009 with LOW_EM option

data base settings (same settings in bfc.C (Jan's trick) and in my MuDst reader):

dbMk->SetFlavor("sim","bemcPed");

dbMk->SetFlavor("Wbose","bemcCalib");

dbMk->SetFlavor("sim","bemcGain");

dbMk->SetFlavor("sim","bemcStatus");

Note: for BEMC ideal pedSigma set to 0, so effectively

there is no effect when I apply 3-sigma threshold above pedestal.

**Figure 1:** Sampling fraction (0.07*E_reco/E_thrown) distribution: average vs. gaussian fit

E_reco is the total energy in the BEMC towers from mMuDstMaker->muDst()->muEmcCollection()

E_thrown energy of the thrown photon from tne GEant record

**The difference between fit and using average values is < 0.7%**

**Figure 2:** Otliers vs. eta and phi: (left) no energy reconstrycted, (right) s.f. < 55%

Most outlier are at eta = 0, -1, +1

**Figure 3:** Sampling fraction (0.07*E_reco/E_thrown) distribution

Effect of LOW_EM cuts

**Figure 4:** Sampling fraction vs. thrown photon eta (left) and phi (right)

Average is taken over a slice in eta or phi with cut on outliers (events with s.f. < 5.5% rejected)

**Figure 5:** Sampling fraction vs. thrown position (eta and phi)

Average is taken over a slice in eta or phi with cut on outliers (events with s.f. < 5.5% rejected)

**Figure 6:** (left) Single tower sampling fraction

and (right) energy ratio of 1x1 cluster to the total BEMC energy

Not much of the effect from LOW_EM cuts on the 1x1 clustering. Need to look at other (2x1, 2x2 clusters)

Monte-Carlo setup:

- Throwing one photon per event
- Compare EEMC geometry v6.0 (pure lead) vs. v6.1
- Full STAR geometry configurations
**with and without LOW_EM option** - 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

**dashed/open red**: full STAR y2006, no LOW_EM, EEMC geometry v6.1**solid red**: full STAR y2006, with LOW_EM, EEMC geometry v6.1**dashed/open black**: full STAR y2006, full STAR y2006, no LOW_EM, EEMC geometry v6.0**solid black**: full STAR y2006, full STAR y2006, with LOW_EM, EEMC geometry v6.0

**Figure 1:** Sampling fraction of various EEMC layers vs. thrown photon energy:

(a) tower s.f.; (b) tower s.f. distribution; (c) pre-shower1; (d) pre-shower2; (e) SMD, (f) post-shower

**Figure 2:** (left) Shower shapes and (right) shower shape ratios

Monte-Carlo setup:

- Throwing one photon per event
- Compare EEMC geometry v6.1 with pure lead vs. mixture
- Full STAR geometry configurations
**with and without LOW_EM option** - 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

**dashed/open red**: full STAR y2006, no LOW_EM, EEMC geometry v6.1 with**pure lead****solid red**: full STAR y2006, with LOW_EM, EEMC geometry v6.1 with**pure lead****dashed/open black**: full STAR y2006, full STAR y2006, no LOW_EM, EEMC geometry v6.1 with**lead-ally mixture****solid black**: full STAR y2006, full STAR y2006, with LOW_EM, EEMC geometry v6.1 with**lead-ally mixture**

Monte-Carlo setup:

- Throwing one photon per event
**Full y2009 STAR geometry**configurations with LOW_EM option- Throw particles flat in eta (-1,1), phi (0, 2pi),

with**energy steps: 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 GeV**with flat (+/-0.5 GeV) spread - bfc.C options:

trs,fss,y2009,Idst,IAna,l0,tpcI,fcf,ftpc,Tree,logger,ITTF,Sti,MakeEvent,McEvent,

geant,evout,IdTruth,tags,bbcSim,tofsim,emcY2,EEfs,

GeantOut,big,-dstout,fzin,-MiniMcMk,beamLine,clearmem,eemcDB,VFPPVnoCTB - Use
**fixed (7%) sampling fraction in StEmcSimpleSimulator.cxx**

mSF[0] = 1/0.07;

mSF[1] = 0.;

mSF[2] = 0.; - Vertex z=0
- 50K/per particle type

data base settings (same settings in bfc.C (Jan's trick) and in my MuDst reader):

dbMk->SetFlavor("sim","bemcPed");

dbMk->SetFlavor("Wbose","bemcCalib");

dbMk->SetFlavor("sim","bemcGain");

dbMk->SetFlavor("sim","bemcStatus");

Note: for BEMC ideal pedSigma set to 0, so effectively

there is no effect when I apply 3-sigma threshold above pedestal.

**Figure 1:** Rapidity cuts study (no eta cuts, no cuts on otliers in this figure)

**Figure 2:** Sampling fraction (0.07*E_reco/E_thrown) distribution

E_reco is the total energy in the BEMC towers from mMuDstMaker->muDst()->muEmcCollection()

E_thrown energy of the thrown photon from tne Geant record

Cuts: **|eta| < 0.97** && **|eta|>0.01** && **s.f. > 0.055**

s.f. distribution on the log scale

Monte-Carlo setup:

- Throwing one photon/electron per event
- y2009 geometry tag (EEMC geometry v6.1)
- Full STAR geometry configurations
**with and without LOW_EM option** - Throwing particles flat in eta (1.08, 2.0), phi (0, 2pi), and energy (5-35 GeV)
- ~50K/per particle type, 250 events per job, 200 jobs

Geometry configurations

**red**: without LOW_EM option**black**: with LOW_EM option- circles - electrons, squares - photons

**Figure 1:** (left) time/event distribution, (right) average time for the particle type

**Conclusion**: for single particle Monte-Carlo required time in starsim

with LOW_EM option is ~ 2.6 times higher.

Monte-Carlo setup:

- Throwing one photon per event
- Compare new EEMC geometry in CVS for y2006 and 2009 configurations
- Full STAR geometry configurations
**with and without LOW_EM option** - Throw particles flat in eta (1.08, 2.0), phi (0, 2pi), and
**energy (5-35 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

**red**: full STAR y2009, with/without LOW_EM, EEMC geometry**black**: full STAR y2006, with/without LOW_EM, EEMC geometry v6.1

**Figure 1:** EEMC sampling fraction (left) distribution (right) vs. thrown photon energy (1.2 < eta < 1.9; no pt cuts)

**Figure 2:** EEMC sampling fraction (left) distribution (right) vs. thrown photon energy (1.2 < eta < 1.9; pt > 7GeV cut)

**Figure 5:** Shower shape ratios (v plane)

**Figure 6:** Shower shape ratios (u plane)

**Figure 7:** Pre-shower migration (1.2 < eta < 1.9; no pt cuts)