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

Need multiple cS1 variables corresponding to each position? #155

Closed
pdeperio opened this issue Oct 18, 2017 · 5 comments
Closed

Need multiple cS1 variables corresponding to each position? #155

pdeperio opened this issue Oct 18, 2017 · 5 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@pdeperio
Copy link
Contributor

@berget2 derived new S1 LCE map using NN 3D FDC positions (XENON1T/pax#628). hax currently creates only one cs1 variable from the old map. Should we make another cs1 variable to correspond to the new map?

@berget2
Copy link
Contributor

berget2 commented Oct 18, 2017

Correction maps were added to run-db collections to unify/simplify applying different maps to different runs. With the FDC-3D using NN positions we're starting to build multiple sets of corrections for each set of runs. We should maintain a single set of corrections, or implement something else on the collections level to keep this tidy.

@feigaodm
Copy link
Member

If S1 map is defined as function of nn positions, in principle we should check whether it's applicapable to tpf positions. Not sure if we should create two cS1s at the stage from different algorithms for now. Maybe @pelssers can check whether we see some strange effect on the TPF position distributions using NN based FDC.

I'm fine with keeping NN as the default maps for signal corrections, as I don't see position resolution is that significant in terms of S1&S2 variations. Which algrithms to use for FV definition could be another independent topic, if we can not prove NN FDC can be applied to TPF, probably we need to use NN as position indicator and TPF as a cut to ensure quality. But my understanding could be wrong.

@pdeperio
Copy link
Contributor Author

@berget2 I think when this Corrections treemaker was implemented, the RunsDB collection implementation became obsolete, right @coderdj? i.e. Run dependence now handled in hax.ini.

@feigaodm I agree. How about #156?

@coderdj
Copy link
Contributor

coderdj commented Oct 20, 2017

@pdeperio yeah we got rid of this run DB logic for everything except the electron lifetime correction. It's all in hax now and should be easier to oversee. That whole mess with all these DB entries was not a really well thought out system but we needed something to avoid bumping pax versions 10 times during the SR0 workshop.

As far as the subject of this thread. We should settle on a position then just have one correction. It's relatively easy to unapply and reapply custom corrections (with the other position for example) for people studying that kind of thing but I wouldn't necessarily formalize it.

@pdeperio pdeperio added this to the v1.9.0 milestone Oct 24, 2017
@pdeperio
Copy link
Contributor Author

pdeperio commented Nov 1, 2017

Implemented in #156

@pdeperio pdeperio closed this as completed Nov 1, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants