1 / 17

Certifying Geant4-based calorimeter simulations for the LCD

Certifying Geant4-based calorimeter simulations for the LCD. Dhiman Chakraborty, Guilherme Lima, Jeremy McCormick, Vishnu Zutshi NICADD, NIU ALCWG-Cal Meeting November 24, 2003. Why comparing Mokka and LCDG4?. Previous LCD studies based on Gismo

myra-greer
Télécharger la présentation

Certifying Geant4-based calorimeter simulations for the LCD

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Certifying Geant4-basedcalorimeter simulationsfor the LCD Dhiman Chakraborty, Guilherme Lima, Jeremy McCormick, Vishnu Zutshi NICADD, NIU ALCWG-Cal Meeting November 24, 2003

  2. Why comparing Mokka and LCDG4? • Previous LCD studies based on Gismo • Geant4-based LCD simulations are rather new, they need to be certified (then Gismo should be dropped) • (LCD)Mokka and LCDG4 were developed independently. Both are based on Geant4, so they should provide compatible results • XML-based geometry representation, like in Gismo

  3. Fair comparison • Geant4 version 5.2 • SDJan03 geometry (cylindrical layers with virtual cells) • Physics list from Mokka • Range cut of 0.1mm • Text output implemented into projective LCDG4 • Same events are processed in both detector simulators (single particles: 50 GeV e, μ, π) input from binary stdhep file: θ = 90°, flat in φ • Same materials in sub-detectors (look at X0, λI )

  4. Distributions used for comparisons • Energy depositions per layer • Energy depositions per cell • Number of hits per layer • Dependence of Nhits with threshold

  5. Ecal: Energies per layer R A N G E O U T S MIP peaks

  6. Hcal: energies per layer Significant Disagreements?

  7. Ecal: energies per cell Discrepancies! ECal threshold at 0.04 MeV

  8. Hcal: energies per cell Slightly different slopes… HCal threshold at 0.7 MeV

  9. Ecal: energies in absorbers LCDG4 only, Mokka does not provide energies in absorbers MIP peaks

  10. HCal: energies in absorber LCDG4 only, Mokka does not provide energies in absorbers MIP peaks

  11. Cross checking: Ecal+Hcal, cell+abs LCDG4 only

  12. Number of hits per layer

  13. ECal Nhits x threshold – 50 GeV muons ECal threshold

  14. Ecal Nhits x threshold – 50 GeV pions ECal threshold

  15. Ecal Nhits x threshold – 50 GeV positrons ECal threshold

  16. Nhits on Hcal – Dependence on thresholds HCal threshold HCal threshold

  17. Conclusions • Energy deposition: very good agreement on both layer and cell distributions • Number of hits: Good agreement on shapes, small disagreement on normalization • LCDG4 and Mokka give compatible results for the calorimeter simulations of SD detectors • MC particles contributing to hits: expect a bug fix quite soon! • Requests for event processing are welcome, pleasesend a message to jeremy@nicadd.niu.edu.

More Related