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