[Gate-users] [ no subject ]

[Simon Stute]

Hi Irene and Jasmine,

Could you tell me please how long is your simulation 'single_layer.mac' ?
Because if it is not too much, I will run it will all different versions of
Gate between 3.0.0 and 3.1.2 to see what are the differences and locate
between which ones the problem occured.

I would like to know too what version of Geant4 and clhep do you use with
these different Gate versions. Because it has been demonstrated that with a
wrong version of Geant4 and clhep, you could get wrong results. Do you
really use the correct ones ?

Hope we fix this problem as soon as possible,
Simon

2007/12/18, Jasmine Schirmer <jasmine.schirmer at tum.de>:
>
> Dear Min-Jae and GATE developers,
>
> Thank-you for looking into this problem. We are attaching an example of a
> simple GATE simulation (single_layer.mac and the supplementary macros:
> no_visu.mac, physics.mac, single_layer_allmod.mac, CylFOV_Ph.mac and
> G_CapillariesS_5m_2D.mac ). You can run this simulation by using the command
> ./control/execute/single_layer.mac. We have run this on two versions of
> GATE. You will see that if you run this simulation using the newest version
> 3.1.2, you will obtain for the singles and coincidences, energy spectra
> which do not fall to zero. The output is as follows for a 400keV low energy
> threshold:
>
> There are: 868838 Singles
> => 35514 coincidences
> => 4395 intercrystal coincidences
> => 9888 randoms
> => 2264 intercrystal randoms
>
> where intercrystal coincidences are true coincidences detected in the same
> rsector. On the other hand, running the SAME macro under an older version of
> GATE (we used 3.0.0), the energy spectra falls to zero as expected with
> the following output:
>
> There are: 867717 Singles
> => 50812 coincidences
> => 0 intercrystal coincidences
> => 9438 randoms
> => 2199 intercrystal randoms
>
> This bug in the newest version of GATE means that we cannot use the output
> data reliably and our reconstructed images are incorrect.
>
> We have noticed that this problem has also been detected by Georgi
> Gerganov. As well, we have seen the same problem using an ECAT simulation
> (0_ScriptSystem.mac and 0_ScriptSystem.mac). The resulting plots from this
> simulation have been posted with the November 29th email to the GATE mailing
> list.
>
> Please let us know if you have any further questions.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Irene and Jasmine
>
> Original Message:
>
> Dear Irene,
> <br />
> <br />Let me check what you are saying...
> <br />
> <br />There is no problem with benchmarkPET...
> <br />[In both the old and new versions of GATE, the benchmark PET was
> <br />successfully completed and no difference in the energy spectra was
> <br />observed.]
> <br />
> <br />In your simulation code, uphold value is 950 keV...
> <br />[However, the upper energy threshold of the benchmark is set to
> <br />650keV while our simulations are performed at higher upper energy
> <br />thresholds.]
> <br />[/gate/digitizer/Singles/upholder/setUphold 950. keV]
> <br />
> <br />In fact, I can't get that the benchmark is same but your code is
> <br />different...
> <br />
> <br />Can I take a look on your code and simulate your code with my gate?
> <br />
> <br />MJ
> <br />
> <br />-----Original Message-----
> <br />From: gate-users-bounces at lists.healthgrid.org
> <br />[mailto:gate-users-bounces at lists.healthgrid.org] On Behalf Of
> Jasmine
> <br />Schirmer
> <br />Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:24 PM
> <br />To: gate-users at lists.healthgrid.org
> <br />Subject: [Gate-users] [ no subject ]
> <br />
> <br />Dear GATE users and developers,
> <br />
> <br />A few weeks ago, we sent an email to the users list concerning a
> problem we
> <br />are having with the newest version of GATE. The email was dated the
> 29th of
> <br />November and is titled 'differences in energy spectra from different
> GATE
> <br />releases'.
> <br />
> <br />At the moment, we can no longer use reliably the newest version of
> GATE
> <br />until this issue is resolved. To recall your attention, we showed a
> <br />difference in the energy spectra produced by two identical
> simulations using
> <br />two versions of GATE (version 3.0.0 and the newest 3.1.2). The
> newest
> <br />version gives a different and unexpected result for the energy
> spectra as
> <br />you can see from the figures attached in the previous email. (The
> energy
> <br />spectra does not fall to zero!)
> <br />
> <br />We kindly ask the developers and users to address this issue. In
> addition,
> <br />if anyone would like to perform a similiar test on their version of
> GATE, we
> <br />would be happy to provide the macro we used.
> <br />
> <br />Thanks in advance,
> <br />Irene Torres and Jasmine Schirmer
> <br />
> <br />_______________________________________________
> <br />Gate-users mailing list
> <br />Gate-users at lists.healthgrid.org
> <br />http://lists.healthgrid.org/mailman/listinfo/gate-users
> <br />
>
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gate-users mailing list
> Gate-users at lists.healthgrid.org
> http://lists.healthgrid.org/mailman/listinfo/gate-users
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengatecollaboration.org/mailman/private/gate-users/attachments/20071218/abbee26a/attachment.htm>