GSI Forum - RDF feed
https://forum.gsi.de/index.php
hyperon fast simualtions
https://forum.gsi.de/index.phpindex.php?t=rview&goto=16546&th=4266#msg_16546
is the simfast_opt.C file (scrut14 revision 24805 checked out on May 6th) ready to use? I tried to run it, changing the magnetic field to HALF and changed p_min from 0.5 to 0.1 in
However, in the former case, the acceptance is about 1/10 compared to the latter case.
Cheers,
/Karin
]]>Karin Schönning2014-05-08T15:04:56-00:00Re: hyperon fast simualtions
https://forum.gsi.de/index.phpindex.php?t=rview&goto=16548&th=4266#msg_16548
did you update also PndTools and fsim? Indeed, you should get the same results. You could also check whether the detectors are setup in the same way in both macros. I'm happy about all error reports...
Best,
Klaus
]]>Klaus Götzen2014-05-08T15:44:20-00:00Re: hyperon fast simualtions
https://forum.gsi.de/index.phpindex.php?t=rview&goto=16549&th=4266#msg_16549
]]>Karin Schönning2014-05-08T15:55:20-00:00Re: hyperon fast simualtions
https://forum.gsi.de/index.phpindex.php?t=rview&goto=16550&th=4266#msg_16550
Karin Schönning2014-05-08T16:37:23-00:00Re: hyperon fast simualtions
https://forum.gsi.de/index.phpindex.php?t=rview&goto=16551&th=4266#msg_16551
Karin Schönning2014-05-08T16:48:34-00:00Re: hyperon fast simualtions
https://forum.gsi.de/index.phpindex.php?t=rview&goto=16552&th=4266#msg_16552
which talk are you referring to? In the current simfast_opt.C 'det_full' is not an available option. Take a look here
However, the results of simfast.C and simfast_opt.C without any specification of a detector option string should give the same results. Perhaps I didn't update parameters always in both files, and something got asynchronous. Since I consider simfast_opt.C as the default (because it has more functionality), I'd propose to only use that one.
I'll certainly check for this inconsistency, thanks for pointing it out.
Best,
Klaus]]>Klaus Götzen2014-05-08T18:09:22-00:00Re: hyperon fast simualtions
https://forum.gsi.de/index.phpindex.php?t=rview&goto=16583&th=4266#msg_16583
1.64 GeV/c:
Full: 4.2%
No FS: 3.6%
No Barrel EMC: 4.4%
No MVD/GEM: 0.6%
4 GeV/c:
Full: 4.7%
No FS: 0.8%
No Barrel EMC: 5.0%
No MVD/GEM: 1.5%
some remarks/question marks:
1: The efficiency for the full setup in fastsim is smaller than for the full simulations, which means that the numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. Maybe the relative numbers are relevant though.
2: The efficiency without EMC barrel is slightly better than for the full setup. The difference is within the statistical uncertainty but if the difference remains after running more events (ran only 10000 so far for each case) what could be the reason? As far as I know, the particles are anyway reconstructed before entering the EMC so it shouldn't be because some particles are absorbed by the EMC, right?
3: At low energies, MVD and GEMs are necessary for lambda lambdabar studies.
4. At higher energies, both MVD, GEMs and FS are necesary.