2024A Veto stability

Following the pass2 reconstruction of the 2024A electron data, I wanted to evaluate the veto stability throughout the whole 2024A data-taking. To do that, I used the Veto cut as defined for the 2023A electron period analysis, and evaluated its run-by-run efficiency. The 2023 veto cut was defined as follows:

bool filterVETO(RVecD &VETO_enePMT) {
  const double vetoCut01 = 0.0076;
  const double vetoCut23 = 0.008;
  const double vetoCut45 = 0.0076;

  double eVETO01 = VETO_enePMT[0] + VETO_enePMT[1];
  double eVETO23 = VETO_enePMT[2] + VETO_enePMT[3];
  double eVETO45 = VETO_enePMT[4] + VETO_enePMT[5];

  return ((eVETO01 < vetoCut01) && (eVETO23 < vetoCut23) && (eVETO45 < vetoCut45));
}

The Veto To evaluate its efficiency I selected beamOnly events and applied the following cuts:

auto dF2 = dF1.Filter("abs(mom_genfit_upMM-100)<20"); 
auto dF3 = dF2.Filter("eecal > 80 && eecal < 120");
auto dF4 = dF3.Filter("ehcal < 10");
auto dF5 = dF4.Filter(filterSRD, {"SRD_ene"});
auto dF6 = dF5.Filter(filterVETO, {"VETO_enePMT"});

The used SRD cuts is inherited by the 2023A analysis. For the moment, I chose not to use the in-time variables. The results are reported below:

The two fluctuation in period 4 are respectively due to:

• A change of the DAQ dead time occurring during runs 11126-11128
• A reported "veto instability" due to hardware issues (the HV board for the LYSO detector was causing troubles - the veto instability was resolved by simply turning the LYSO board off).