|
1
|
|
|
2
|
Jan 12/22 PionLT/KaonLT Analysis Meeting Notes
|
|
3
|
|
|
4
|
Participants:
|
|
5
|
- Richard Trotta, CUA
|
|
6
|
- Pete Markowitz, FIU
|
|
7
|
- Dave Gaskell, JLab
|
|
8
|
- Jacob Murphy, Ohio
|
|
9
|
- Nathan Heinrich, Garth Huber, Muhammad Junaid, Stephen Kay, Vijay Kumar,
|
|
10
|
Love Preet, Ali Usman, Regina
|
|
11
|
|
|
12
|
Please remember to post your slides at:
|
|
13
|
https://redmine.jlab.org/projects/kltexp/wiki/Kaon_LT_Meetings
|
|
14
|
|
|
15
|
Junaid
|
|
16
|
------
|
|
17
|
1) PID study from Sept PionLT data
|
|
18
|
- SHMS cuts to produce samples of pi+, K+ and proton physics events
|
|
19
|
- Suggestions:
|
|
20
|
- need to show and optimize the SHMS calorimeter cuts, as the NGC distn is up
|
|
21
|
to 30pe. This is a bit surprising, so maybe there is some e+
|
|
22
|
contamination.
|
|
23
|
- RF cut for pi+:
|
|
24
|
- get a nice peak between 1.3 and 2.7 when applying other PID and cointime
|
|
25
|
cuts
|
|
26
|
- can use the RF cut to optimize other PID cuts, but probably should not
|
|
27
|
use it for the final pi+ analysis as it looks like you loose too many pi+
|
|
28
|
- RF cut for K+:
|
|
29
|
- get a clear peak at RF=1.0ns, but this appears to NOT be K+. Judging from
|
|
30
|
the MM-RF correlation, the real K+ are offset slightly from pi+, pions
|
|
31
|
centered at 1.8, K+ centered at 1.5
|
|
32
|
- RF cut for protons:
|
|
33
|
- the peak at 1.0ns appears to be the protons. The RF cut appears to be
|
|
34
|
quite effective in separating them from K+/pi+
|
|
35
|
- unexplained RF features:
|
|
36
|
- there is a "wrap around" RF peak at 3.7. This should be studied to be
|
|
37
|
sure we understand what it is.
|
|
38
|
- Not sure what the additional peak at 3.0 is. Please re-check if the RF
|
|
39
|
offset is the same for all runs or not.
|
|
40
|
|
|
41
|
Richard
|
|
42
|
-------
|
|
43
|
1) EDTM study
|
|
44
|
- finished a second set of runs over the weekend. Still need to analyze them.
|
|
45
|
|
|
46
|
2) Analysis Task List
|
|
47
|
- met with Vijay on how to split up the Heep and Lumi analysis tasks.
|
|
48
|
|
|
49
|
Vijay
|
|
50
|
-----
|
|
51
|
1) Heep-singles analysis from low Q2 Kaon-LT data
|
|
52
|
- implemented most of the changes discussed last week.
|
|
53
|
- comparison between data and SIMC is looking much better, except for some
|
|
54
|
runs.
|
|
55
|
- the two bumps in SHMS ypfp were indeed due to the HGC inefficient region
|
|
56
|
- Examples of both good and bad comparisons were shown.
|
|
57
|
- Bad HMS comparison (#2 of 3.9 GeV).
|
|
58
|
Dummy contribution is too large.
|
|
59
|
Q2, epsilon distns offset from Dummy run.
|
|
60
|
Definitely a kinematics-mismatch issue.
|
|
61
|
- Bad SHMS comparison (#5 of 3.9 and #2 of 4.9 GeV).
|
|
62
|
Data is too low compared to SIMC.
|
|
63
|
This might be a tracking issue. Please check the pruning selection
|
|
64
|
parameters and the resulting tracking efficiencies.
|
|
65
|
|
|
66
|
Jacob
|
|
67
|
-----
|
|
68
|
1) EDTM Analysis
|
|
69
|
- started working on analysis of Lumi scan #3 and EDTM analysis. Nothing to
|
|
70
|
show yet.
|
|
71
|
|
|
72
|
Nathan
|
|
73
|
------
|
|
74
|
1) Mode 10 Analysis
|
|
75
|
- got hcana to compile. Showed some early results from a defocused SHMS
|
|
76
|
electron run.
|
|
77
|
- looking at hgcer Mode 10 data
|
|
78
|
- reconstructed Pulse Time distn looks the same as FADC data
|
|
79
|
- reconstructed Pulse Integral distn also looks the same
|
|
80
|
- however, the Pulse Amplitude distn has some significant differences. This
|
|
81
|
needs to be understood.
|
|
82
|
- while at JLab, Nathan will see if he can arrange a morning meeting with
|
|
83
|
Mark to discuss his findings.
|
|
84
|
|
|
85
|
Next Meeting: Wed Jan 26 @ 11:00 Regina/NOON JLab time
|