Add configurations used for MC Production

[gpronost]

• Add PMT configuration from WCSim Hybrid used for MC Production

Edit: The number of PMT in 40% case is different to what I was giving before, the reason is coming from the Geometry used: I have using the standard 40% geometry for this, but Yonenaga-san used 20%+10k geometry with modified Photo-coverage. What Yonenaga-san did is more consistent with the other configuration in my opinion, so I think the number of PMT for 40% in the photocoverage computation should also be updated.

[JostMigenda]

Thanks for these additions @gpronost!

Just to make sure I understand this correctly: Right now, I see three different B&L PMT numbers for 40% configurations:

• 38448 (in kHyperK40; this is from the main WCSim repo, with the old geometry)
• 39238 (this is the number you gave a few days ago)
• 38952 (in kHyperK40BnL0mPMT; new in this PR)

I assume the third one is the one from Yonenaga-san you mention above, is that correct? If so, should we replace the second number with the third? (Since we have the kHyperK40BnL0mPMT geometry now, I would leave the kHyperK40 geometry as-is until both WCSim forks are merged.)

[JostMigenda]

On a related note, I’m a bit surprised that for the 20% B&L configurations with different number of mPMTs the number of B&L PMTs varies so much—between 18952 and 20055, i.e. more than 5%!

If the total area of the mPMTs is only about 6–20% of the total B&L PMT area, it seems possible to me that the difference in the number of B&L PMTs might have an effect that is not negligible compared to the effect of the difference in the number of mPMTs. (Of course, the benefit of the mPMTs is not just additional photosensitive area, so this is not a completely fair comparison. Still, I want to be sure that we understand this effect.)

[gpronost]

Thanks for these additions @gpronost!

Just to make sure I understand this correctly: Right now, I see three different B&L PMT numbers for 40% configurations:

• 38448 (in kHyperK40; this is from the main WCSim repo, with the old geometry)
• 39238 (this is the number you gave a few days ago)
• 38952 (in kHyperK40BnL0mPMT; new in this PR)

I assume the third one is the one from Yonenaga-san you mention above, is that correct? If so, should we replace the second number with the third? (Since we have the kHyperK40BnL0mPMT geometry now, I would leave the kHyperK40 geometry as-is until both WCSim forks are merged.)

Yes, that's right.

On a related note, I’m a bit surprised that for the 20% B&L configurations with different number of mPMTs the number of B&L PMTs varies so much—between 18952 and 20055, i.e. more than 5%!

I'm a bit surprised by this variation too. I think if we use 38952 as a reference for the Hybrid cases (so replacing the second number by the third as you are saying), we will be taking this effect into account.

[JostMigenda]

Scaling with the number of PMTs will only avoid offsets in the mean energy, though. Fewer B&L PMTs would still mean fewer hits at the same energy and thus lead to larger uncertainty in the vertex and energy reconstruction.

Anyway, that’s something to discuss in the context of hybrid WCSim, not here. I’ll accept this PR now.