8 December 2009


Ilya C: Victor sent a note saying things were working to some list, somewhere.
Michael C: We now have a bfc framework.  AT the moment it's just the barrel filter.
Will Q: Can you explain tuning more?
Michael A: You have to run enough simulation to show you aren't biasing yourself for whatever

threshold you select.
Things to consider:
--Trigger?  => Will A: Not below 5
--Software analysis cuts?
Ilya Q: Is there documentation on how to use this?
Michael A: No, Victor will be doing that.

(2)Alice's post
I didn't take notes while talking.  General conclusion is to repeat, double-checking the trigger
simulation.  Some debate about if just looking at gamma candidates is the best thing to do. 

(3)Hal's post
Hal C: I will continue to run some tests in the background.
Ilya Q: x-axis is generated energy/pT?
Hal A: Yes

(4)LOW_EM option part 100
Will C: Barrel already has 100 kEV limits buried in geometry.
Michael Q: How do you calculate the time?
Ilya A: Time between starting and ending starsim.
Michael C: But big overhead in loading to memory.  For barell get 9 sec without LOW_EM and 34
sec with LOW_EM. 
Hal Q: Why is this an issue?  Aren't we doing physics better this way?
Will A: We need  lots of MC - 2006, 2009 200 GeV and 500 GeV.
Jim A: We may be "over-simulating" and wasting CPU, especially in endcap.
Hal C: I think we should put lowest cuts on materials right before the scintillator - this is
not what is in the geometry.  We should fix the geometry.
Michael C: From barrel studies seems we need low cuts in lead and plastic. 
Hal C: In endcap, then, we need in cladding.  For first run, do LOW_EM option and then refine.
Michael C: For barrel, the global LOW_EM cut doesn't add much time.
Matt Q: How many radiation lengths upstream of endcap?
Will/Hal A: 1.5-2.
Matt C: We can't really use different options because they you get different sampling fractions.

Will C: I think there actually should be less material in TPC now.
Jim C: Agree, seems to be less just looking at it.