Difference between revisions of "Optics Meeting Sep 6 2023 1100AM ET"
(→Attendance) |
(→Minutes) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Minutes= | =Minutes= | ||
| + | # (Tyler) Use of hole centers as truth values: results generally promising: residuals for theta and phi | ||
| + | have only slightly larger standard deviations than with Monte Carlo truth values. Somewhat larger biases | ||
| + | in the means, but presumably this could be corrected for. Looked at individual best-fit coefficients vs. | ||
| + | pass (beam energy) - hard to see systematic pattern. See double-peaking in phi residuals for pass 1 (only), | ||
| + | and rather large width to theta residuals also for pass 1. The double-peaking in phi at one pass seems to | ||
| + | be a case where the fit is essentially a linear fit of phi_target to phi_gem. I wonder (once again) whether | ||
| + | in the case of phi whether we should be fitting to the local (sector-based) values, rather than the global | ||
| + | ones to properly capture things that might depend on, for example, phi^2. | ||
| + | # ( | ||
=Meeting link information= | =Meeting link information= | ||
See email invitation, or contact David Armstrong, Kate Evans or Jennifer McAllister for Zoom link | See email invitation, or contact David Armstrong, Kate Evans or Jennifer McAllister for Zoom link | ||
Revision as of 19:13, 8 September 2023
Back to Main Page >> Optics Meetings
Contents
[hide]Agenda
- Comparison of fit coefficients between hole center and MC angles (Tyler) PDF
- Full GEM modules in Geant4 [ [[1] Bill]
- Energy dependency of the parameterizations [Zuhal] here
Attendance
Zuhal, David A., Ciprian, Juliette, Andrew, Paul S., Chandan, David Firak
Minutes
- (Tyler) Use of hole centers as truth values: results generally promising: residuals for theta and phi
have only slightly larger standard deviations than with Monte Carlo truth values. Somewhat larger biases in the means, but presumably this could be corrected for. Looked at individual best-fit coefficients vs. pass (beam energy) - hard to see systematic pattern. See double-peaking in phi residuals for pass 1 (only), and rather large width to theta residuals also for pass 1. The double-peaking in phi at one pass seems to be a case where the fit is essentially a linear fit of phi_target to phi_gem. I wonder (once again) whether in the case of phi whether we should be fitting to the local (sector-based) values, rather than the global ones to properly capture things that might depend on, for example, phi^2.
- (
Meeting link information
See email invitation, or contact David Armstrong, Kate Evans or Jennifer McAllister for Zoom link
