...
LPM effect
LSR: LPM effect exist exists and we should see it, turning it off should not be the solution.
thin target effect, comes in again largest for high Z material, also suppresses brem, we should not consider this solved until we get a coorect implementation
JB: you are right, I never said the problem is solved, we just know the current implementaiton is not correct and the G4 developers advised us to do so. we already saw we need some LPM effect, starting from 100GeV or so. will have to work with our data and the g4 team to implement this correctly
BG: turning LPM off is like having an upper limit, right?
JB: yes
BG: whatever we get when we switch it on will be less than what we have with LPM off?
JB: somerhing that philippe brought up some times, is the connection between hits agreement and extra material
...
PB: we should use the EM hypothesis for gamma and electron runs, not for hadron runs
CS: right, i think we have the same discrepancy (MC flag and data flag) for the electron runs, did not check the hadron runs
PB: we need to have the same hypothesis for MC and data
JB: we always used MIP for data and EM for MC
LSR: just to reminde remind people of what this is, obviously for MIP hypothesis there is a dE/dx calculation mainly coming in for the kalman energy estimate; for the EM hypothesis, we assume the energy deposition goes down along the layers by an exponential . so it in rad. lengths. So for the same track, the kalman energy will be higher for the e-radloss hypothesis. This affects the fit itself which in some case uses that piece of infouses this info. to partition the energy between the vertex tracks. so you should see some 2nd order effect from that