...
JB: first quick update on g4 standalone simulation shown last week: found that even at 1GeV w/o tracker the shift is still there, so we don't trust this simulation anymore. Also the code eveolved to include strips readout in tracker (thanks franz), and carmelo is working on that and will soon show results
JB: now on hadronic cascades: more systematic analysis, see page 2 for all physics list available. So far tested std glast model. QGS are high energy models (>20GeV), but two of them not accessible from BT.
as usual many MC if we combine energies and physics lists, not to talk about angles.
in this analysis i did not want to cut on data but rather work on beam spot to reproduce data, only cut is require > 8 logs in cal (big cut though); will have to apply cut on delta event time too
pi 5 gev agreement very good both for CAL and TKR variables (surprisingly good for TKR hits)
from slide 5 on same set of plot for protons at 6, 10 , 20 , 100 GeV
conclusions: having a trigger implementation at SPS would help. generally ok below 20GeV. what will happen with data reprocess? PB said it should not change a lot
comment from PB (sorry i lost it)
FL: we should define which physics list we should test, in view of the next mass MC production and the information we should give to collaboration. G4 people advertise QGSP for high energy, maybe we could try that.
JB: should use bertini at low energy, early to say which is best at high energy.
FL: yes but which should we run for mass simulation then? and where did you run yous simulations?
JB: locally, so very little statistics. agree we should define models to test.
FL: this week there will be a g4 review at cern, i will ask them about suggestions
LL: francesco and JB will make a list of desired physics list to test for new MC production run
BL: definitely room for improvement at 20 gev, not very good agreement. events in MC with very few hit logs, maybe related to beam spot
JB: yes noticed that especially in tkr plots. track1 data falls into a crack and have <36 hits
PB: you should look at caltransrms vs cal energy raw in a 2D plot comparison
FL: should discuss these results with people looking at CT variables
LL: can we say that tkr1hits are well reproduced? also for e? the only place where there is discrepancy is 20GeV but you said we hit a tkr crack in MC
JB: yes, tkr1numhits is in fact a collection of clusters associated to 1st track, and there is agreement
LSR: i cannot really see the slides, sorry for that,problem with acrobat reader, but in general for high energy we must make sure buffer size are well reproduced both in MC and data
JB: not sure i understand, but even at 100GeV we do not have so many hits to saturate buffers with hadrons
LSR: so maybe not a problem, but we should make sure we use the same buffer size used for data
JB: talking about FIFO settings?
LSR: yes
BL: nb of fits Tkr2NumHits is very different between data and MC as far as saturation is concernced. data sharply saturates at value different from MC - bug or feature? also for p 6 geV slide 14. LSR is right we should check that
LSR: for the 20-GeV protons, it looks like all the tracks both track 1 and track 2 are shorter in MC (gap perhaps?). For 5GeV pions, and 6 and 10Gev protons, there are some events with 2 long tracks in the data, but not in the MC. Could this be real 2nd tracks from the beam?
LL: second meeting only lasting 1 hour, good but even better if we go back to the 2 hour excitment. talk to you next week