Using the most recent DCOPS calibration file I created a CSV file of only the interesting stuff for this exercise. DCOPSCalibReduced.csv
I noticed that applyCalib.awk did not seem to use these numbers. So I stripped out the calibration information and used strip.awk to create insert.awk using
awk -F, -f strip.awk DCOPSCalibReduced.csv >insert.awkand then stuffed insert.awk into the applyCalib.awk framework.
Recall that appying the corrections to ME+2/SLM1 provided very clean clustering: will the new corrections do the same?
| DCOPS | Old up-down | New up-down |
| 25 | 0.431 | -.364 |
| 26 | 0.0594 | 0.012 |
| 27 | -.1942 | 0.265 |
| 28 | -.4029 | 0.474 |
| 29 | 1.0492 | -.98 |
| 30 | -.135 | 0.208 |
| 31 | 0.0819 | -.011 |
| 32 | -.2496 | 0.32 |
| 33 | -.2349 | 0.307 |
| 34 | -.443 | 0.512 |
These aren't anything like each other--the chance of tight clustering seems miniscule. So where did the old numbers come from if they are simultaneously so good and bad?
If I compare the old and the new difference "up-down" calibration number, I get something alarming, as can be seen below. Something is reversed in the calibration, and there's a systematic offset. Reversals are easy: all I have to do is mix up 1x(=up) and 3x(=down). The offset is unexpected. It isn't large, but it is very clean.
The oldest reference in these notes to this file is from 8-Oct-2009
-rw-r--r-- 1 jnb jnb 41473 Jan 14 16:41 /afs/hep.wisc.edu/home/jnb/public_html/cms/14Jan2011/applyCalib.awk -rw-r--r-- 1 jnb jnb 50255 Jan 17 19:15 /afs/hep.wisc.edu/home/jnb/public_html/cms/17Jan2011/applyCalib.awk -rw-r--r-- 1 jnb jnb 49344 Jan 25 15:56 /afs/hep.wisc.edu/home/jnb/public_html/cms/25Jan2011/applyCalib.awk -rw-r--r-- 1 jnb jnb 44871 Mar 15 2010 /afs/hep.wisc.edu/home/jnb/applyCalib.awk lrwxr-xr-x 1 jnb jnb 20 Apr 22 2010 /afs/hep.wisc.edu/home/jnb/XFER/SDF/Mar2010/applyCalib.awk -> ../../applyCalib.awk -rw-r--r-- 1 jnb jnb 44871 Nov 6 2009 /afs/hep.wisc.edu/home/jnb/XFER/applyCalib.awk -rw-r--r-- 1 jnb jnb 29467 Jun 20 2009 /afs/hep.wisc.edu/home/jnb/utilities/cms/applyCalib.awk
The one in utilities seems to have the same calibrations as the new one I made today. That's encouraging.
When I use the new calibrations, the up-down difference is significantly worse:
| DLC range | Nentries | up-down mean | up-down RMS | |
| 25-35 | 6 | 0.206045 | 0.942174 | |
| 35-45 | 6 | -0.220172 | 0.97716 | |
| 45-55 | 4 | -0.126815 | 0.790221 | |
| 55-65 | 6 | -0.494217 | 0.696855 | |
| 65-75 | 7 | 0.8137 | 1.3977 | |
| 75-85 | 5 | 0.120728 | 0.697421 | |
| 85-95 | 5 | -0.55304 | 0.308295 | |
| 95-105 | 7 | 0.574457 | 0.298755 | |
| 105-115 | 5 | -0.915948 | 0.501172 | |
| 115-125 | 2 | 0.27718 | 0.61732 | |
| 125-135 | 5 | -0.43394 | 0.365915 | |
| 135-145 | 7 | -0.385671 | 0.496254 |
UPDATE: sign taken from the file for U/D corrections is wrong (except for MAB calibrations)
Question: do I have the right virtual dowels defined? I think so as described here
Modified 25-January-2011 at 15:44
http://hep.physics.wisc.edu/~jnb/cms/25Jan2011
| Previous notes | Next notes | Main slide directory |