The tradeoffs I see concerning increasing the step size for showers: 1) I assume
the calorimeter energy resolution will degrade and the sampling fraction will
change, unless somehow you compensate for the large step size; 2) I am guessing
you will have fewer background particles from events in the coils. We can probably
live with #2, certainly in the early stages of analysis. #1 is more of a problem.
We should run some tests to see what the effects are, starting from a benchmark
input file. We can reconstruct the output in recsis easily even with HBT and see
what the resolution in the calorimeter is.
Any comments from anyone else?
- Will
David Rowntree wrote:
> Hello,
> I used a modified guser_kine routine to run single, randomly distributed,
> particles through gsim. I ran 100 each of pi0, e-, pi-, and p. The times per
> event on my machine were: 6.1, 5.5, 1.5, and 1.3 sec. As expected, the main
> problem appears to be for showers.
> A possible solution I would like to discuss: we could significantly
> increase the step size for any particles resulting from showers. Are there any
> cases in which we need good resolution on the particles resulting from a
> shower? This might be a better solution than trying to incorporate some form
> of parameterization.
>
> -David