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

[WIP] Adjusting Beamspot constrain #62

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

kjvbrt
Copy link

@kjvbrt kjvbrt commented Feb 7, 2025

BEGINRELEASENOTES

  • Adjusting Beamspot constrain to (0.0098 2.54e-5 0.646)

ENDRELEASENOTES

The adjustment done following the discussion in #61 (comment)

@Zehvogel
Copy link
Collaborator

Zehvogel commented Feb 7, 2025

Thx! Can you also link where these numbers are from for documentation purposes? :)

@andresailer
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @kjvbrt
Thanks! Can you also say for which beam-energy this is and maybe provide a reference?

@kjvbrt kjvbrt changed the title Adjusting Beamspot constrain [WIP] Adjusting Beamspot constrain Feb 7, 2025
@andresailer
Copy link
Collaborator

<parameter name="BeamSizeX" type="float" value="38.2E-3"/> <!-- FCCee beam sizes at the sqrt(s) = 182.5 GeV [as of FCC Week 2018] -->
<parameter name="BeamSizeY" type="float" value="68E-6"/>
<parameter name="BeamSizeZ" type="float" value="1.97"/>

@saracreates
Copy link
Contributor

saracreates commented Feb 7, 2025

The values are for 240GeV, as recorded in the dec 2022 parameters here, see vertex $\sigma$ values: https://github.com/HEP-FCC/FCCeePhysicsPerformance/blob/master/General/README.md#vertex-distribution

@kjvbrt
Copy link
Author

kjvbrt commented Feb 7, 2025

<parameter name="BeamSizeX" type="float" value="38.2E-3"/> <!-- FCCee beam sizes at the sqrt(s) = 182.5 GeV [as of FCC Week 2018] -->
<parameter name="BeamSizeY" type="float" value="68E-6"/>
<parameter name="BeamSizeZ" type="float" value="1.97"/>

Thanks @andresailer, adjusting all occurrences.

@andresailer
Copy link
Collaborator

<parameter name="BeamSizeX" type="float" value="38.2E-3"/> <!-- FCCee beam sizes at the sqrt(s) = 182.5 GeV [as of FCC Week 2018] -->
<parameter name="BeamSizeY" type="float" value="68E-6"/>
<parameter name="BeamSizeZ" type="float" value="1.97"/>

Thanks @andresailer, adjusting all occurrences.

Sorry, don't bother with the old file, I just posted this for where the old numbers came from.

@kjvbrt
Copy link
Author

kjvbrt commented Feb 7, 2025

<parameter name="BeamSizeX" type="float" value="38.2E-3"/> <!-- FCCee beam sizes at the sqrt(s) = 182.5 GeV [as of FCC Week 2018] -->
<parameter name="BeamSizeY" type="float" value="68E-6"/>
<parameter name="BeamSizeZ" type="float" value="1.97"/>

Thanks @andresailer, adjusting all occurrences.

Sorry, don't bother with the old file, I just posted this for where the old numbers came from.

Ahh, OK. Do you want to the old config to be preserved or I can leave it as it is now?

@andresailer
Copy link
Collaborator

#63 let's one switch between the different cms energies, so we don't have to do this exercise again, until the beam parameters are changing.

@kjvbrt
Copy link
Author

kjvbrt commented Feb 7, 2025

Good idea. Closing...

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Transverse impact parameter discrepancy between full and fast simulation
4 participants