- Timestamp:
- 02/21/05 13:31:27 (20 years ago)
- File:
-
- 1 edited
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
-
trunk/MagicSoft/TDAS-Extractor/MonteCarlo.tex
r6644 r6646 187 187 \subsection{Measurement of the Resolutions \label{sec:mc:resolutions}} 188 188 189 In order to obtain the resolution of a given extractor, we calculated the RMS of the distribution: 190 191 \begin{equation} 192 R_{\mathrm{MC}} \approx RMS(\widehat{Q}_{rec} - Q_{sim}) 193 \end{equation} 194 195 where $\widehat{Q}_{rec}$ is the reconstructed charge, calibrated to photo-electrons with the conversion factors obtained in 196 section~\ref{sec:mc:convfactors}. 197 \par 198 One can see that for small signals, small extracion windows yield better resolutions, but extractors which do not 199 entirely cover the whole pulse, show a clear dependency of the resolution with the signal strength. In the high-gain region, 200 this is valid for all fixed window extractors up to 6~FADC slices integraion region, all sliding window extractors up to 4~FADC 201 slices and for all spline extractors and the digital filter. Among those extractors with a signal dependent resolution, the 202 digital filter with 6~FADC slices extraction window shows the smallest dependency, namely 80\% per 50 photo-electrons. This 203 finding is at first sight in contradiction with eq.~\ref{eq:of_noise} where the (theoretical) resolution depends only on the 204 noise intensity, but not on the signal strength. Here, the input light distribution of the simulated light pulse introduces the 205 amplitude dependency (the constancy is recovered for photon signals with no intrinsic input time spread). Here, the main 206 difference between the spline and digital filter extractors is found: At all intensities, but especially very low intensities, the 207 resolution of the digital filter is much better than the one for the spline. 208 189 209 \begin{figure}[htp] 190 210 \centering
Note:
See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.