Mid-Shower Muon Conversion Background Filter #1217
Merged
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I am updating ldmx-sw, here are the details.
What are the issues that this addresses?
This resolves #984 by implementing a separate filter rather than incorporating this process into a general mid-shower background sample. Look there for the context on why this decision was made. Besides adding the ability to filter for this background, I also updated the
eat.py
module to be more supportive of both 4GeV and 8GeV beams. This was done by having both the detector name and the generator be parameters to the function that configures the simulation and scaling the minimum energy required of the primary electron to be 87.5% of the beam energy (3.5GeV for 4GeV beam and 7GeV for 8GeV beam). The rest of the energy thresholds for the different backgrounds are inputs into the functions.Check List
I attached any sub-module related changes to this PR.Proof
I am showing proof that these developments were successful by showing plots where I vary the minimum required total energy in the muons$E_F$ as well as the minimum energy to bias a photon $E_B$ . When varying $E_F$ we expect the distribution of total muonic energy to have a hard cut at that value while varying $E_B$ should have no distorting affect on the distribution.1
Footnotes
Having two different parameters for this simpler, single-process case is overkill. I have tested and will put into the EaT internal note showing that $E_B$ can equal $E_F$ for this sample. ↩