# 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):

**eemc-cvs**: EEMC only with geometry file from CVS (cAir-fixed)**full-cvs**: Full STAR with geometry file from CVS (cAir-fixed)**eemc-j**: EEMC only with Jason geometry file**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

- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments