1 / 3

Calo material ( GeoModel vs TrackingGeometry )

Scan with geantinos in ISF_G4 and ISF_Fatras reasonable agreement ( GeoModel vs. layer based Calo description ). Calo material ( GeoModel vs TrackingGeometry ). Full simulation vs. AtlasExtrapolator. Method - shoot muons in 1 direction, fully simulate with G4

nansen
Download Presentation

Calo material ( GeoModel vs TrackingGeometry )

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. Scan with geantinos in ISF_G4 and ISF_Fatras reasonable agreement ( GeoModel vs. layer based Calo description ) Calo material ( GeoModelvsTrackingGeometry )

  2. Full simulation vs. AtlasExtrapolator • Method - shoot muons in 1 direction, fully simulate with G4 - at Calo-MS boundary, create CurvilinearTP for exiting G4 muon - extrapolate from Calo entry muon TP to the muons exit surface - compare extrapolated TP and errors with fully simulated muon Local position pulls : not biased, but errors (from AtlasExtrapolator) underestimated by ~ 40 %

  3. Full simulation vs. AtlasExtrapolator Energy loss - significant difference for η ~> 1.5 10 GeVmuon 100 GeVmuon [η = 1, φ=1.57 ] ΔEloss = 17 ± 30 MeV [η = 1.5, φ=1 ] ΔEloss = -260 ± 40 MeV ΔEloss = -1760 ± 260 MeV [η = 3, φ=2 ] ΔEloss = -1064 ± 170 MeV To be investigated: - material difference around the Calo-MS boundary ? - problems in the energy loss parametrization ?

More Related