CAL Shower Shape Analysis Pass7 vs Pass8

This is a first attempt at comparing the performance of the CAL shower shape analysis between pass7 and pass8.

The file used for the work are:

For Pass7:

AG-GR-v17r31-StdCuts-merit.root

BKG-GR-v17r31-StdCuts-merit.root

where StdCuts are: FswGamState == 0&&  CalEnergyRaw>  5&& TkrNumTracks>  0&&  CalCsIRLn>  4.

For Pass8:

AG-GR-v20r3p4-OVL

BKG-GR-v20r3p4-OVL

I include the following precuts to the allGamma sample for both Pass7 and Pass8:

FswGamState==0 && TkrNumTracks > 0 && (CalEnergyRaw > 5 && CalCsIRLn > 4) && CTBCPFGamProb>0

note for Pass8 CalEnergyRaw is substutited by CalUberEnergy and I have added the cut on CTBCPFGamProb because it is necessary that the sample of events pass the

Cpf selection before I can compare the Pass7 and Pass8 selection in the CAL.

To the BKG sample I include in addition to the above selection the condition that there not be gamma's in the sample, i.e. a cut on

McSourceId != 7000

The selection conditions assigned to each node are defined below.

Note that all the CTB variables have been redefined based on their definition found in the workbook. N.B for variables such as XtalRmsTkrCoreDoca, TkrSHRCalAngle, and TkrCalTrackDoca which are based on the merit variable CalTrackDoca in Pass8 this variable is for the first cluster and not the uber one. While the CalEdgeEnergy variable (which is also used to define CalEdgeEnergyRatio) is for the uber cluster, therefore there is a inconsistency for the Pass8 selection. We have looked into creating the CalEdgeEnergy variable for the first cluster and stumbled across the issue that the getEnergy() method from recon is different from that in the CalValsTool.

veto BackSeal: ((Cal67Sum - 66.)/33.5)^2 + ((Cal67Diff + .4)/7.2)^2 < 1.2 & CalLLRms < 30

veto LowE: CalEdgeEnergy>0 & CalEdgeEnergyRatio >  (LogCalEnergyRaw -.5)/2.

filter VTXSplit: VtxAngle > 0

veto VtxSideSeal: (CalDeltaEdgeEnergy < .6  & CalDeltaEdgeEnergy < 6/CalEdgeEnergy & CalEdgeEnergy < 190)

veto Vtx: (CTBTkrCoreCalDoca<32.3 | (CTBTkrCoreCalDoca<152 & XtalRmsTkrCoreDoca<-10)) & XtalRmsTkrCoreDoca < (2- .15*CTBTkrCoreCalDoca)  & Tkr1CoreHC > 0

filter notVTXSplit: VtxAngle == 0

veto TkrSideSeal: (CalDeltaEdgeEnergy < .75 | (CalDeltaEdgeEnergy < .95 - (30./(CalEdgeEnergy+20))^2 & CalEdgeEnergy < 300)) & CalDeltaEdgeEnergy < (1.1 - CalEdgeEnergy/200)

filter nTkrFront: TkrNumTracks > 1 && Tkr1FirstLayer < 5 &&(CTBTkrCoreCalDoca<40.56 | (CalXtalRatio<0.105 & EvtECalTransRms<3.45))

filter nTkrBack: "TkrNumTracks > 1 && Tkr1FirstLayer > 5 && ((CTBTkrSHRCalAngle>0.142 && CTBTkrCoreCalDoca<16.7) | (CTBTkrSHRCalAngle<0.142 & XtalRmsTkrCoreDoca<-15.4))

filter 1TkrFront: (TkrNumTracks == 1) && Tkr1FirstLayer < 5 && (EvtECalTrackDoca < 2.13 || CTBTkrEnergyFrac > 0.285)

filter 1TkrBack: (TkrNumTracks == 1) && Tkr1FirstLayer > 5 && !(XtalRmsTkrCoreDoca > -3 && CalTrkXtalRmsE > 12)

Selection efficiency per node Pass7 vs Pass8.

N.B. There is a typo on the y-axis for the 2d plots!! Both histograms are plotted for McZDir.

VtxAngle issue

The number of vertexed events (VtxAngel >0) is roughly a factor of 10 less in Pass8. The issue is that the extraction of tracks from trees does not result in 2 tracks which vertex very often, Tracy has been working on this. Below is the comparison of VtxAngle for Pass7 (v17r31), v19r4p1gr14, and v20r3p4 which shows the difference in this variable between the three passes.