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

Shift the CRT-PMT-Matched CRT Hit Time to the beam reference in CAFs #442

Open
1 task
aheggest opened this issue Feb 28, 2024 · 0 comments
Open
1 task
Assignees
Labels
bug Something isn't working enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@aheggest
Copy link
Contributor

The CAFs use the beam spill time as the time reference (as opposed to the trigger time). Currently the times saved in the CAF CRT Hit object SRCRTHit.t0,SRCRTHit.t1,SRCRTHit.time correctly use the beam time reference for both data and MC, as implemented in sbncode PR#323 and sbncode PR#358, however the CRT Hit time saved in the CAF CRT-PMT Match object SRCRTPMTMatch.matchedCRTHits.time still uses the trigger timestamp as a time reference. We should definitely have the two different collections of CRT Hit times on the same time scale so they can easily be compared.

To do:

  • Add srtrigger.trigger_within_gate to SRCRTPMTMatch.matchedCRTHits.time to shift the CRT-PMT Match CRT Hit time reference from trigger time to beam time reference.

Currently as is in the CAFs, the analyzer can easily fix the matched CRT Hit time by adding on this value manually, but it will be better to have all of the times using the same reference. I will make a PR to address this.

@aheggest aheggest self-assigned this Feb 28, 2024
@SFBayLaser SFBayLaser added bug Something isn't working enhancement New feature or request labels Feb 28, 2024
@aheggest aheggest transferred this issue from SBNSoftware/icaruscode Mar 4, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants