Hal did a comparison of the widths of the shower shapes between Monte Carlo and data. Below is a description of what was done.
I took the nominal central value, either from the maxHit or the nominal central value, and added the energy in the +/- 12 strips. Then I computed the mean strip (which may have been different from the nominal central value!!). I normalized the shape to give unit area for each smd cluster, and added to the histograms separately for U and V and for MC and data (= Will's events). I did NOT handle Will's events correctly, just using whatever event was chosen randomly, rather than going through his list sequentially. Note I ran 1000 events, and got 94 events in my shower shape histos. So, there are several minor problems. 1) I didn't go through Will's events sequentially. 2) I normalized, but perhaps not to the correct 25 strips, because the mean strip and the nominal strip may have differed. 3) there may have been a cutoff on some events due to being close to one end of the smd plane (near strip 0 or 287). My sense from looking at the plots is that these don't matter much. The conclusion is that the MC shape is significantly narrower than the shape from Will's events, which is obviously narrower than the random clusters we were using at first with no selection for the etas. Hence, we are not wasting our time with this project.
A few histograms were added to the code:
Figure 1:
Data vs. MC mean u-strip
Figure 2:
Data vs. MC mean v-strip
Figure 3:
Data vs. MC u-strip sigma
Figure 4:
Data vs. MC v-strip sigma
Figure 5:
MC E
v
vs. E
u
Figure 6:
Data E
v
vs. E
u
Figure 7:
MC energy asymmetry in SMD planes
Figure 8:
Data energy asymmetry in SMD planes
Figure 9:
Shower shape library index used (picked at random)
Single events shower shapes are displayed in
or
.