-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Change PE and amplitude definition for RecHits #17
Conversation
Looks good to me! (And I guess for now we can actually apply the calibration in the analysis step, still good to document.) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I just have one big question that is scatter across my comments.
Why don't you divide by the approximate sampling fraction in the rec producer? Or, if you don't want to include it now, why do you multiply by the sampling fraction in the test (to undo a division by it)?
Otherwise, this looks good.
@tomeichlersmith, @mrsolt I have decided to:
For reference, here is how the number of "reconstructed" PEs varies in different averaging/attenuation scenarios in double-readout, for one single SimHit with 4.66 MeV (~MIP), ~68 "simulated" PEs:
|
This PR changes the definition for a RecHit's number of PEs and amplitude - for a double-ended readout bar. It solves #16.
I also included a note on the expected translation of recHit energy <=> incident particle energy with a rough estimate of the sampling fraction - as derived from @therwig . We should follow up with a calibration.