 |
 |
Hi Frank,
I was about to write a mail to Alberto as I have realised that I
haven't yet replied to the mail below.
What you call for is a plug-in mechanism for physics lists (just
like objectives for a camera). This is good to produce
publications with fresh physics lists. One may leave the questions
on implementation aside for the moment. One may combine Katja's
and your suggestion into the following phrases
"Ability to track changes w.r.t. to reference versions by easy
switch between older and recent physics lists by e.g. a plug-in
mechanism for physics lists."
This is the step after a first impression one gets once our
detectors are implemented into the G4 validation chain.
[log in to unmask]"> Dear Katja, Roman,
this is an interesting discussion. Having older physics lists available in newer GEANT4 versions would make it easier to disentangle the underlying reasons when changes are observed when switching to a new version. But what would be even more useful (but much more difficult) would be the possibility to use newer physics lists also with old G4 versions. Our most common problem is not trying to get at an older physics list, but being able to simulate events in our full chain with physics lists that are not completely outdated. Since the roadblock there is to have the latest G4 version integrated in the frameworks we are using for analysis and simulation this would require being able to "swap in" newer physics lists without other changes in the setup. I fully realize that this is extremely complicated, would probably require quite a restructuring of the G4 code and general setup, and will not even be possible for all lists. But we may not be the only ones where this is relevant, and it may provide a trigger to think in these directions for future development.
Best,
Frank
<=========================================================>Frank Simon
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Physik
Phone: +49-89-32354-535Mobile: +49-160-90446142<=========================================================>Der Katja,
thanks for the feedback and the suggestion.
I am wondering whether your suggestion isn't similar to keep on pushing (and supporting their request for funding) such that our data and prototypes are part of the G4 validation chain. If this is done that one can exactly on the effect of changes by selecting in the (existing online tool) either an older version or a newer version. This maybe more realistic than asking for maintaining a list that may be obsolete after a while.
For those who have never seen this G4 validation portal page. Here is the link
Anyway one may formulate your suggestion more general by asking for being able to track changes w.r.t. to reference version.
Cheers,
Roman
On 18/09/2019 11:34, Katja Krüger wrote:
[log in to unmask]">Dear Roman,
I agree with your list of points, and in addition would have a practical wish: I understand their wish to always improve on the models and physics lists with each new Geant version, but it makes it harder for us to understand what’s going in when changing from one version to the next (and it is not always possible to run the simulation with more than one Geant version). So if they could keep a “reference” list (which ideally is one of our favourite physics lists) which is kept the same for all Geant versions, this would help.
Cheers,Katja
On 18. Sep 2019, at 00:31, Roman Pöschl <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
this is not a mail which is directly on Speakers Bureau Matters but maybe the SpB plus Katja is still the right forum.
please find below a mail by Alberto who asks for the experiments on requirements to G4. Apologises for the later forwarding. Today I have started to write the LP19 Proceedings and I took the occasion to address Alberto's request. Will it be possible to get to a coordinated answer by us until Thursday evening or Friday morning?
To refresh your mind I send you links to three documents that may be relevant
a) Talk by Katja and R.P. from June 2018
b) Talk by Imad at EPS-HEPc) Poster by Roman for LP19tomorrow I will look up also the talk by Marina given and the ECFA Review last November.
My impression is that the general conclusions given in a) are still valid. Today I have realised however that at least older G4 version performed poorly on tracks in the AHCAL (Frank's analysis from 2013). To the points made in the material above one may add three further points
i) CALICE will or is already about to put more emphasis on timing in hadronic showers
ii) (Personal remark) I would like to know how valuable are our 'pointlike' events, i.e. events in which basically only the primary particle is scattered but which create spikes in the energy deposition. The advantage of these events are that they are far less complicated and thus maybe interesting.
iii) I would like to see that G4 continues with the effort to implement CALICE prototypes into the G4 validation chain. As far as I know even the well advanced implementation of the SiW ECAL is on hold since autumn last year (due to manpower issues)
Other items are welcome. i think we should maintain an active communication of the G4 team.
Cheers,
Roman
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Geant4 user requirements from HEP experiments Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 13:29:26 +0000 From: Alberto Ribon <[log in to unmask]> To: John Derek Chapman <[log in to unmask]>, Zachary Louis Marshall <[log in to unmask]>, Heather Gray <[log in to unmask]>, Marilena Bandieramonte <[log in to unmask]>, Vladimir Ivantchenko <[log in to unmask]>, Victor Daniel Elvira <[log in to unmask]>, Gloria Corti <[log in to unmask]>, Andreas Morsch <[log in to unmask]>, Ivana Hrivnacova <[log in to unmask]>, Sandro Christian Wenzel <[log in to unmask]>, Gerardo Ganis <[log in to unmask]>, Roman Poeschl <[log in to unmask]> CC: John Apostolakis <[log in to unmask]>, Mihaly Novak <[log in to unmask]>, Witold Pokorski <[log in to unmask]>, Anna Zaborowska <[log in to unmask]>
Dear all,
I am asked to give a talk on the Geant4 user requirements from HEP
at the Geant4 Collaboration meeting, on Monday 23 September.
Please send me either a few slides or a a few lines of text,
possibly by Thursday 19 September.
Thanks in advance and best regards!
Alberto
To unsubscribe from the CALICE-SPEAKERS-BUREAU list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CALICE-SPEAKERS-BUREAU&A=1