Minutes for 07-Feb-2006 Telephone meeting

1. Notes from 24-Jan meeting

2. Updates
   • Monitor application test code - George
     Described his monitoring server/client framework, which several people had volunteered to test for him. Chris had already tried this, found easy to install, and the simple GUI and production of histograms worked OK. Event display part of the application can be configured to have different update frequency from histograms, and may be useful to do this. Some confusion about which process was client and which server, different convention than some people had been familiar with. Input is in form of binary files from DAQ, output is root file from client. If a web server is running locally (or there is writable area accessible from a central web server), can save .gif to web pages for reference. Could also be run after end of run on binary files for reference. George would also like to have e.g. leakage current data available to histogram, and asked for any feedback/bugs/requests for additional features from people who tested it. (Since 7-Feb, Anne-Marie and Yoshi have also both installed and tried out George's package.)
     Discussion over how the package would deal with partially completed runs, and distinguish between end of run and one in progress - at some level, would rely on sensible manual intervention from shift crew.
   • Position resolution in test beam data - earlier study by Mark Stockton
     Discussion about simulation of drift chamber and scintillator hits and the information needed to study position resolution in ECAL. Scintillator uses simtracker hits, drift chamber not certain. Would lose position resolution if dch hits stored as SimCalorimeterHit (FS clarified afterwards that dch stores its data as SimTrackerHit). Note a significant difference in the information defined by SimTrackerHits and SimCalorimeterHits is that the latter should contain the momentum vector of the particle which initiated the shower of which the current hit is a part, while tracker hits contain momentum of the particle which created the individual hit itself.
   • Michele - ZHH studies
     Had found that the missing energy in some events noted at a previous meeting had been due to an overflow in the number of hits in certain reconstructed tracks. This caused the MarlinReco processor to lose information about the charged particle momentum reconstructed in the tracking chambers. Therefore, events with high energy muons were more affected than those having electrons, as the electron energies were still reconstructed by the calorimeters. This is a problem in reconstruction rather than simulation, and Michele will for the moment exclude these events (knowing that there may be some small bias resulting from this).
   • Mike G. - single electron resolution study
     Used D09Scint model in mokka with 4T B field, had found DeltaE/E proportional to 1/sqrt(E) for intermediate energies of a few GeV, but differs from this at both lower and higher energies. Had recently carried out simulations without B field, and found (e.g.) mean reconstructed energy of single 5 GeV electrons to be 4.8 GeV, and noted that the response varied with the B field. With 4T field, found r.m.s. DeltaE/E = 0.298 GeV, compared with 0.262 GeV for B=0.
     Next, to try LDC01 model. David W. had found similar behaviour with electrons ~1 GeV; also for muons, but due to the electron component of the energy.

3. Discussion of evolving task list - volunteers
   Long discussion of what we understood (or did not) about the different items on this list. Revised list made public and sent to CALICE mailing list, with intention of discussion at the 6-Mar meeting at UCL, and assignment of names to tasks (to actually carry out the studies). Integration with activity in HCAL in many areas would be natural but we do not have this information at present.

   ---

4. Plans for LCWS / ILC s/w meeting at Cambridge
   • Test beam data analysis
   • WW/ZZ separation plot - 0.3/sqrt(E)?
   • Detector optimisation: variation of length, B field, radius, granularity (longitudinal and transverse)
   • Presentation of MAPS (concept, backed up by some performance indicators, h/w and s/w aspects)?? Less likely
5. Next steps