Speakers:
Brian Page(Brookhaven National Laboratory), Ernst Sichtermann(Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory), Miguel Arratia(University of California, Riverside), Stephen Sekula(SMU)
10:40
→
11:00
Discussion - "Zeroth Order Placeholder Figures" for the DOE Proposal20m
We've been asked to provide some "zeroth order" placeholder figures from this WG for the DOE proposal draft, with a deadline for these placeholders of Friday, Sep. 24. We should have a small discussion of this today.
Discussion Notes:
Brian: 2-panel-er showing JER/JES as a function of (a) pseudorapidity and (b) energy -> put scale and resolution on same plots, show vs. the 2 different variables
Fast Simulation: show fast sim w/ energy flow on same plot as reference points from full sim/single particle
For small x physics, resolution at extreme pseudorapidities is important -> show off ECAL, etc. effects in those cases.
Brian: things we need to touch on as a group
Jet performance, resolution, etc.
PID performance and vertexing.
What might be the optimal plot? Pointing resolutions, D reconstruction (e.g. resolution or signal-to-noise as a function of PID, no PID, etc.)
Brian: Collins asymmetry-related catch-all?
Demo the importance of PID, jet energy resolution, etc.?
Miguel: baseline configuration has DIRC in barrel ... current plot doesn't look great with DIRC in the way. Better PID in barrel was discussed in YR as a limiting issue for this.
Brian: can we pick and x vs. Q^2 region that emphasizes the dRICH in the forward direction -> look at barrel, use as place to discuss future PID upgrades in ATHENA.
Henry: ECCE also has DIRC in plan.
Steve and Miguel:
Charm jet efficiency and background rejection vs. eta, etc.
Motivated by strangeness, or gluon-related Delta g/g, etc.
Henry and Olga:
Make sure we understand the goals of the DOE proposal before we settle on a final list of plots
Olga: emphasize distinctive features of ATHENA (3T magnet, coverage, etc.) -> larger magnet bore may make us more upgradeable from a PID perspective, etc.