Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Detector Parameters Update: PFRICH #570

Closed
Chao1009 opened this issue Oct 12, 2023 · 4 comments
Closed

Detector Parameters Update: PFRICH #570

Chao1009 opened this issue Oct 12, 2023 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
topic: PID Particle identification

Comments

@Chao1009
Copy link
Contributor

A series of smaller issues from #552
det: new value from 2023/09/27 parameter table
sim: current simulation value as of 2023/10/11
template_var: from which we extract the sim value in compact files. Empty means we do not know.
stat: Correct, Missing, or Mismatched

Please implement the new detector parameters, and try to fill in the template_var for the Missing ones if you think it's important for future simulation/design comparison.

Here is the detailed report for this detector subsystem:

CENTRAL DETECTOR, Proximity Focusing RICH, : 
                           det    sim                   template_var        stat
Length (cm)               45.0   49.1              {{PFRICH_length}}  Mismatched
Inner Radius (cm)          8.0  4.756               {{PFRICH_rmin0}}  Mismatched
Outer Radius (cm)         63.0   63.0                {{PFRICH_rmax}}     Correct
Offset from Center (cm) -146.0    NaN                          Empty     Missing
Physical Start (cm)     -168.5 -123.6                {{PFRICH_zmin}}  Mismatched
Physical End (cm)       -123.5 -172.7  {{PFRICH_zmin-PFRICH_length}}  Mismatched
@Chao1009
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @kkauder, do you have a plan for updating the parameters?

@kkauder
Copy link
Contributor

kkauder commented Nov 15, 2023

@Chao1009 Could you tell me what test to run after I make changes and see a new report?

@kkauder
Copy link
Contributor

kkauder commented Nov 15, 2023

Also, what's the preferred procedure? Should I hardcode values in https://github.com/eic/epic/blob/main/compact/definitions.xml? Or still use something like the existing

    <constant name="BackwardPIDRegion_zmin"       value="CentralTrackingRegionN_zmax" />

and rely on CentralTrackingRegionN_zmax (eventually) being correct?

@kkauder
Copy link
Contributor

kkauder commented Nov 17, 2023

@Chao1009 please check that #595 does what is needed. Two notes:

  • pfRICH calls the "less negative" value z_min, so you need to swap that in the tester
  • The bore is asymmetric (not in this simple version but in reality), about 8 cm in the short direction, 10 in the wide direction. I chose the a circle with the bigger radius to avoid any beam pipe overlap problems.

github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 29, 2023
### Briefly, what does this PR introduce?
Adjust parameters to conform to
https://eic.jlab.org/Geometry/Detector/Detector-20231031150001.html

### What kind of change does this PR introduce?
- [ ] Bug fix (issue #570 )
- [ ] New feature (issue #__)
- [ ] Documentation update
- [ ] Other: __

### Please check if this PR fulfills the following:
- [ ] Tests for the changes have been added
- [ ] Documentation has been added / updated
- [ ] Changes have been communicated to collaborators

### Does this PR introduce breaking changes? What changes might users
need to make to their code?
The volume is shortened, the inner radius enlarged, so in general no
problems expected. But it's also shifted by 1mm toward 0, so other
systems need to respect the change in `CentralTrackingRegionN_zmax` to
avoid overlap.

### Does this PR change default behavior?
Yes
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
topic: PID Particle identification
Projects
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants