GSI Forum: EMC » EMC resolution

Home » PANDA » PandaRoot » EMC » EMC resolution

Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator

Re: EMC resolution [message #15570 is a reply to message #15567]

Mon, 14 October 2013 14:47

Dima Melnychuk
Messages: 213
Registered: April 2004
Location: National Centre for Nucle...

first-grade participant

From: *fuw.edu.pl

Hi,

Some additional comments from my side on EMC resolution.

I have more or less the same numbers as Binsong and I tried to look what are main constributions to these numbers.

By the way I used apr13 release of pandaroot for these studies and did simulation for barrel in 30-130 degree range.

So first of all I made a comparison of resolution which includes and does not include digitization.

The resolution without digitization can be obtained if PndEmcMakeDigi class is used for digitization and in emc.par
UseDigiEffectiveSmearing:Int_t 0

In this case the resolution is only due to energy leakage below threshold. With single crystal threshold 3 MeV the resolution is 1.08 %

The resolution in my case is obtained from Novosibirsk fit
(root/pandaroot/trunk/macro/emc/dedicated/fit_resolution.C)

When digitization is included two additional constributions to resolution are photostatistics and electronics noise. With current parameters in emc.par/all.par photostatistics for case of barrel for 1 GeV photon should give 0.43 % (94 p.e. per MeV and 1.7 excess noise factor). 1.5 MeV noise gives 0.15% contribution accordingly.
Adding these three contrubution quadratically
sqrt(1.08^2+0.15^2+0.43^2)=1.17 %

Simulation of 50 k photons with digitization included gives 1.20 % resolution which is in agreement with simple estimation.

If we want to compare the results of simulation with prototype measurements the non-uniformity of ligh yield should be included in simulation and it will give a sizeble effect.

But otherwise it seems that electronics noise and photon statistics are treated reasonably well and I can only imagine that the energy leakage could be underestimated.

Dima

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		EMC resolution By: binsong on Fri, 11 October 2013 14:05
		Re: EMC resolution By: Dima Melnychuk on Mon, 14 October 2013 14:47
		Re: EMC resolution By: StefanoSpataro on Mon, 14 October 2013 17:29
		Re: EMC resolution By: binsong on Wed, 30 October 2013 10:50
		Re: EMC resolution By: StefanoSpataro on Wed, 30 October 2013 14:57
		Re: EMC resolution By: Dima Melnychuk on Wed, 30 October 2013 15:23
		Re: EMC resolution By: Ronald Kunne on Wed, 06 November 2013 11:13
		Re: EMC resolution By: Dima Melnychuk on Wed, 06 November 2013 12:35
		Re: EMC resolution By: StefanoSpataro on Wed, 06 November 2013 17:11
		Re: EMC resolution By: binsong on Fri, 15 November 2013 15:10
		Re: EMC resolution By: Dima Melnychuk on Fri, 15 November 2013 15:24
		Re: EMC resolution By: binsong on Fri, 15 November 2013 15:30
		Re: EMC resolution By: StefanoSpataro on Fri, 15 November 2013 16:23
		Re: EMC resolution By: binsong on Fri, 15 November 2013 16:30
		Re: EMC resolution By: StefanoSpataro on Fri, 15 November 2013 16:35
		Re: EMC resolution By: Dima Melnychuk on Fri, 15 November 2013 15:39
		Re: EMC resolution By: binsong on Fri, 15 November 2013 15:49
		Re: EMC resolution By: binsong on Thu, 13 February 2014 15:16
		Re: EMC resolution By: binsong on Thu, 13 February 2014 15:17

Previous Topic:	[FIXED] About negative track id -2
Next Topic:	An idea for EMC Error matix

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Fri Mar 20 03:48:08 CET 2026

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00762 seconds