1 / 12

Results from Non-proj Geom

Results from Non-proj Geom. Guilherme, Jeremy and Vishnu. Sampling Weights. Determined from 10 GeV charged pions Minimize: (1/N) S (E 0 – a i L i ) 2 where E 0 is the incident energy a i is the weight for layer i L i is the energy/number of hits in lyr i

crescent
Download Presentation

Results from Non-proj Geom

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Results from Non-proj Geom Guilherme, Jeremy and Vishnu

  2. Sampling Weights • Determined from 10 GeV charged pions • Minimize: (1/N) S (E0 – aiLi)2where E0 is the incident energy ai is the weight for layer i Li is the energy/number of hits in lyr i • For simplicity i=2 considered here

  3. Energy Resolution single threshold

  4. ZZ events Fitted width

  5. ZZ events RMS

  6. Analog

  7. Digital

  8. Sampling Weights • GISMO (projective) Analog  64.5 (EM) 16.2(HD) Digital  0.0332 (EM) 0.0715 (HD) • G4 (non-projective) Analog  84.2 (EM) 17.6 (HD) Digital  0.044 (EM) 0.085 (HD)

  9. Energy Resolution (non-proj) single threshold

  10. Energy Resolution (non-proj) dual threshold

  11. Proj vs Non-proj

  12. Comments • The gain in going to non-projective geom is about what we expected (~20%) • But we are not comparing the same thing SDMar vs SDJan GISMO vs G4 EMCal sampling is different • Need to convert these to jet resolutions

More Related