-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
NRs beyond NEST validity #22
Comments
Hi Diego, if I understand this warning right, it's a warning that you've also propagated from NEST itself for where we are outside the fit-regime of validity with NRs. (By the way we can probably increase this to oh, about 330 keV now with newer AmBe data I believe. Or so the NEST docs tell me!) Can you explain how the microclustering will affect this particular line? Because this warning is thrown based on only input arguments (energy and interaction only.) So how will you envision the MicroSeparation will impact this error? |
To clarify, it seems you're generating quanta internally from some energy you fill in. Can you link here where in the code that is so I Can take a look at the related step prior to this error? |
Hi Sophia, the step for quanta generation is indeed just calling NEST with some energy and drift field value for a given cluster. It happens in this file, while the actual warning I quoted is here and relies on the NEST limits that we just hardcoded (maybe there's a better way to do this....). The relation with |
Hi Diego, thanks for the explanation. I think this makes sense to me. The only thing to be careful of is that just because it hits NEST limits does not mean that the energy is unphysical... The cryoneutrons root file you provided: does that have a max cutoff energy or is it monoenergetic? (I'm guessing since it is called |
Quick reply on the second thing: sorry, the filename is a bit stupid since this was just a small sample test. The 200 stands for the number of simulated primaries (neutrons). The initial energy of these neutrons (with starting position confined to the inner and outer cryostat volumes) follows a flat distribution from 0 to 10 MeV. (Update: |
I see. So really we could physically have an energy deposition of >300 keV, given the initial energy spectrum. I don't know of any constraints there but maybe the kinematics don't allow it. The only constraint I'm aware of is that we don't have data fit in this region.. meaning, you want to split up the events into smaller events where we have data (and then I assume sum these quanta back together into a final "event".) Let me know if I'm still missing something. |
This is indeed the question. We wonder if our
Since summing the quanta from interactions with energy E1 and E2 would differ from the quanta obtained for an interaction with E=E1+E2, we keep trying to find a reasonable (~ NEST-being-happy-with-it) microseparation before quanta generation. I don't really have an asnwer, but this issue is just part of the recoil classification and clustering review that I am trying to conduct with @HenningSE (and you, if interested!), who looked compared more in-depth the NEST methods with ours. Do you think this would deserve a call? |
We currently get a lot of these while processing our files:
which could indicate that our NR clusters are probably too big, or our NR selection is unprecise. As expected, these messages pop up more often when we enlarge the
MicroSeparation
size, but the current default is already quite small (50 microns). I would like to revisit these two key points and hopefully figure out the cluster size that NEST "expects".To reproduce the warning, you can just run:
with the current epix release.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: