Minutes of ICD-weights meeting + actions

Present: Bob, Vivian, Stephanie, Jon, Harald, Jan (video), Ia (phone),
         Tobi, Gregorio.

Hi All, we had yesterday a lively and informative meeting on what could be
the cause of the ICR "horns"  we are seeing in events with high e+met.
We were pondering if these jets are due to miscalibration, energy
resolution effects, jet seeding effects, overlap with noise etc...

Our discussion pointed out also that fake jets are a generic term for
a) noise jets (most of the energy comes from abnormal noise in the
               detector)
b) distorted jets (low energy jets (a few GeV) which pass the threshold
   because either they pickup a significant amount of gaussian noise,
   or because they are overcalibrated or..).

At the end of the meeting we were trying to see how we could proceed
since what was observed  is potentially a big hurdle for analysis
requiring large missing E_t:

we want to make progress on at least 4 points.

1) is the 3.8 factor rock solid? We expect
that Andy and his subgroup of experts get back to us with a strong
statement. In the charge of this group is also the clarification
required for the unexplained (for most of us) factor of 2 mentionned by
Jan, for the massless gaps.
A parallel statement on the ICD weights in the MC is also welcome

2) We want to test the bad-seeding hypothesis in the ICR region:
now that ICD is contributing more significantly, could it be that
seeds are formed too frequently, leading to the creation of many distorted
jets? Since he was able to establish that for the CH (and cure it),
Emmanuel has been asked to revive his studies for the ICR region, and see
if indeed the new ICD response could be the reason of this large number of
jets. The MC seeding behaviour can also give us hints if something is
wrong there.

3) Is the introduction of the 3.8 factor doing what it is expected to
do on the response AND RESOLUTION? (sorry if I was not clear on
my original mail: it is these kind of closure tests which I was not
recollecting; I should also have emphasized that a great deal of effort
already went into the study of the 3.8 propagation to the JES).
Vivian will verify the response on the tmbfixed data, and the JES group
will look into the resolution change in the ICR when introducing the 3.8
factor.

4) Jet-id in the ICR: unfortunately this difficult region has weaker
independent handles to distinguish noise jets from distorted or good jets.
Tobias and Stephanie are continuing to work in this direction.

First results on these 4 points are expected for the next CALGO meeting
this tuesday.

                thanks for your patience,

                           Gregorio