Skip to content

Feature/srepetto add grain variables#84

Open
SilviaR98 wants to merge 10 commits into
mainfrom
feature/srepetto-add-grain-variables
Open

Feature/srepetto add grain variables#84
SilviaR98 wants to merge 10 commits into
mainfrom
feature/srepetto-add-grain-variables

Conversation

@SilviaR98
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

New structure of SRSAND with GRAIN, tracker and ecal classes to distinguish tracks, showers and ecal clusters inside SAND.
Added new variable to calculate the neutrino energy starting from the reconstruction given by GRAIN.

@SilviaR98 SilviaR98 requested a review from chenel April 23, 2026 14:58
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@chenel chenel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall seems fine. Just one clarification before we proceed (see below)

kRange, ///< Amount of material traversed by particle
kMCS, ///< Multiple scattering
kCalorimetry, ///< Observed energy deposited in active volume
kEnergyDeposition, ///< From visible light
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does this ever include a correction for unobserved energy to get back to a true energy estimator? Or is it literally the sum of the visible energy (which is nearly always an underestimate)? If it contains a correction, then I think it's not any different than kCalorimetry.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We do not correct for calculating the true energy, but we reconstruct the energy of the particle from the total photons collected in our sensors...if you prefer we can use kCalorimetry, otherwise we can distinguish between the two methods and we can add another variable as that suggested

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Okay---so you're just taking the values read out of the photosensors? If so, then I agree it's different. That's usually a poor energy estimate, so I'm curious why you want to keep it. I don't want this to unnecessarily become a blocker, so if it's an important quantity, that's fine... I'm just trying to understand.

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.

2 participants