|
1
|
Jul 14/22 PionLT/KaonLT Analysis Meeting Notes
|
|
2
|
----------------------------------------------
|
|
3
|
(Notes by GH and SJDK)
|
|
4
|
|
|
5
|
Please remember to post your slides at:
|
|
6
|
https://redmine.jlab.org/projects/kltexp/wiki/Kaon_LT_Meetings
|
|
7
|
|
|
8
|
Present:
|
|
9
|
Regina - Stephen Kay, Nathan Heinrich, Garth Huber, Ali Usman, Vijay Kumar,
|
|
10
|
Love Preet
|
|
11
|
CSULA - Konrad Aniol
|
|
12
|
Ohio - Jacob Murphy
|
|
13
|
CUA - Tanja Horn, Richard Trotta
|
|
14
|
JLab - Dave Gaskell
|
|
15
|
|
|
16
|
Richard Updates
|
|
17
|
---------------
|
|
18
|
- PyRoot-based L/T-separation package
|
|
19
|
- Got the information he needed from Bill's files via Garth's back-up
|
|
20
|
- Changed formatting to fit our efficiency list style a little more
|
|
21
|
- LTSep python package changes
|
|
22
|
- Ver 3.3.0 is latest version
|
|
23
|
- Branches kept are included in runtype
|
|
24
|
- Branch definitions
|
|
25
|
- Grabs required branches
|
|
26
|
- Code runs slightly faster
|
|
27
|
- New version is backwards compatible
|
|
28
|
- Should be able to merge in straightforwardly
|
|
29
|
|
|
30
|
- Comparison of W distributions between MC and Data for 10.6 GeV HeepCoin
|
|
31
|
- Data always lower than MC
|
|
32
|
- changing up to 4 offsets
|
|
33
|
- W should not move in MC, since it knows it's elastic scattering!
|
|
34
|
- Replay didn't shift W with offsets
|
|
35
|
- That's very odd, doesn't seem to be changing in hcana
|
|
36
|
- clearly there is a bug that Richard will need to track
|
|
37
|
|
|
38
|
- Richard 2nd updates
|
|
39
|
- One issue is that Richard is applying the offsets to std.kin, instead of
|
|
40
|
the offsets file. *This is dangerous*, and was discussed in the
|
|
41
|
22-May-17 meeting, as it can lead to errors and inconsistences.
|
|
42
|
*Much better to use offsets file*
|
|
43
|
- Vijay's replay shifts as expeccted, using the offests file.
|
|
44
|
Ask that Vijay and Richard discuss this offline
|
|
45
|
|
|
46
|
Vijay Updates
|
|
47
|
-------------
|
|
48
|
- Comparison of various quantities between Heep coin data/MC for 5 energies
|
|
49
|
- No offsets applied
|
|
50
|
- Sees larger shifts in EM, PMx,y,z between Data and MC at 2.7, 4.5, 4.9
|
|
51
|
GeV, and smaller shifts at 3.6, 3.9 GeV
|
|
52
|
- Consistency between similar beam energies between different run periods
|
|
53
|
- The good news is that 3.6, 3.9 GeV behave similarly, even though taken
|
|
54
|
roughly 6 months apart. i.e. the behavior is reproducible.
|
|
55
|
|
|
56
|
- *Tanja's quick back of the envelope offsets calculation*
|
|
57
|
- For 3.6, 3.9 GeV, momentum offset in electron arm would account for
|
|
58
|
offsets
|
|
59
|
- Larger offsets in other 3 settings, angle offset (~1 mrad) in addition to
|
|
60
|
small momentum offset
|
|
61
|
|
|
62
|
- EMiss offset -> Need a momentum offset in SHMS (hadron arm): ~0.3% at
|
|
63
|
2.7/4.5/4.9GeV
|
|
64
|
- All settings - 0.1% momentum offset in HMS (electron arm)
|
|
65
|
- 2.7/4.5/4.9 - 1 mrad electron angle offset -> 1 mrad = 0.0573 degrees
|
|
66
|
|
|
67
|
- a possible reason why the offsets appear to differ at 3.6,3.9 GeV is that
|
|
68
|
the sensitivity to the needed offset depends on the acceptance matching
|
|
69
|
between the two spectrometers for that setting
|
|
70
|
- i.e. does the electron arm (HMS) define the cone of proton coincidences
|
|
71
|
within the proton arm (SHMS), or the other way around, or are they
|
|
72
|
matched?
|
|
73
|
- some settings are better matched kinematically than others. Best
|
|
74
|
matching occurs when the two spectrometers are near equal angles and momenta.
|
|
75
|
|
|
76
|
Ali Updates
|
|
77
|
-----------
|
|
78
|
- Brief analysis for increasing range of SHMS delta after discussions with Peter B
|
|
79
|
- Aerogel > 1.5 NPE cut, would need to alter if we increase delta
|
|
80
|
- n = 1.011 aerogel tray does not cover full focal plane and may be
|
|
81
|
restricting our negative delta acceptance
|
|
82
|
- Dave/Stephen point out that the bigger difference will really be on
|
|
83
|
adjusting the HMS delta too
|
|
84
|
- SHMS and HMS delta correlated, with negative SHMS delta in
|
|
85
|
coincidence with positive HMS delta for exclusive pi+/K+ events
|
|
86
|
- Our online analysis indicates that we would only gain a few percent of
|
|
87
|
exclusive events
|
|
88
|
- HMS delta should NOT be expanded much
|
|
89
|
- Stephen - Older settings should be re-analysed - Delta vs Delta
|
|
90
|
plots not there previously
|
|
91
|
- GH discusses with PB afterward. He agrees that this is the case for
|
|
92
|
exclusive events, but he is interested in expanding the delta range for
|
|
93
|
SIDIS events in our data sample. So this does not sound like it should
|
|
94
|
be a high priority for us.
|
|
95
|
|
|
96
|
- CPULT > 100%
|
|
97
|
- as shown at last meeting, CPULT are OK for COIN replay, but some SHMS
|
|
98
|
CPULT are still over 100%
|
|
99
|
- Changes to report file template
|
|
100
|
- Updated error calculation does not resolve problem
|
|
101
|
- For EDTM, should be using time RAW not time
|
|
102
|
- CPULT should use time (not RAW)
|
|
103
|
- will discuss more about this with Jacob tomorrow
|
|
104
|
|
|
105
|
- When is the aerogel tray changed?
|
|
106
|
- Peter B did not use the run list to determine what aerogel tray is used,
|
|
107
|
but instead looked at the x-y histogram, and placed limits on the edge of
|
|
108
|
the efficient region
|
|
109
|
- he finds some sets of run numbers where he thinks n=1.011 tray is used
|
|
110
|
that differs from Richard's list
|
|
111
|
|
|
112
|
- the run plan and logbook are unambiguous on when the aerogel was changed.
|
|
113
|
*Ali should independently go through the logbook* to note when aerogel was
|
|
114
|
changed, and see who is right
|
|
115
|
|
|
116
|
- Trying to make EM, PMx,y,z calculations the same between hcana and SIMC
|
|
117
|
- had meeting with DG to understand what variables to look at in SIMC code
|
|
118
|
- Hopefully able to compare to hcana variables shortly
|
|
119
|
|
|
120
|
- Dave - PMx/PMy/PMz variables in SIMC are just components in the lab frame
|
|
121
|
- In Heep case, PM is translated relative to the q-vector
|
|
122
|
- PMz/PMy, only calculates in-plane components (i.e. those in the
|
|
123
|
central plane of the two spectrometers), ignores out of plane
|
|
124
|
components (i.e. the fact that the q-vector is tilted vertically)
|
|
125
|
- Thus, the SIMC versions are not really the missing momentum.
|
|
126
|
99% sure this this not the way it's done in hcana
|
|
127
|
- Now that the inconsistency is identified, we need to fix it
|
|
128
|
- Add new variables to hcana?
|
|
129
|
- Or add them to SIMC?
|
|
130
|
- Dave - Probably easier to change SIMC
|
|
131
|
- New variable that is equivalent to SIMC variable in hcana should be
|
|
132
|
easy too
|
|
133
|
- Two pronged approach makes sense
|
|
134
|
- Tanja suggests to Calculate first by hand and compare
|
|
135
|
- Then decide which one to update
|
|
136
|
- Dave will look into modifying SIMC
|
|
137
|
- *Ali will work on this as a priority*
|
|
138
|
|
|
139
|
- Singles scripts (Heep-singles and Lumi) are ready. Can replay after calibs done
|
|
140
|
|
|
141
|
Jacob Updates
|
|
142
|
-------------
|
|
143
|
- In preparation for cutting settings from run plan (i.e. needing to save time
|
|
144
|
due to slow beam start), looking at how many delta scans needed, using
|
|
145
|
KaonLT 2018 data (10.6GeV) with HMS p=6.6 GeV/c
|
|
146
|
- W vs xfp, W vs xpfp and W vs delta comparisons
|
|
147
|
- after optics calibrations are done, the agreement between data and SIMC is
|
|
148
|
good. Then does predictions for 2022 10.5 GeV delta scan
|
|
149
|
|
|
150
|
- 3 point scan should be ok: 0 and +/-8%
|
|
151
|
- More stats in -xfp and -delta would be useful -> More in -8% run
|
|
152
|
- Keep overall time the same, shift time from +/4% to +/-8% -> -8% needs
|
|
153
|
~2x time alloted (roughtly 60% more than 0 setting)
|
|
154
|
|
|
155
|
- Can cut some settings
|
|
156
|
|
|
157
|
Junaid updates
|
|
158
|
--------------
|
|
159
|
- not present. He has adjusted the Heep singles settings in the run plan and
|
|
160
|
distributed a new spreadsheet
|
|
161
|
|
|
162
|
Nathan Updates
|
|
163
|
--------------
|
|
164
|
- Prepping for Gordon conference
|
|
165
|
- Plots for HGC calibration
|
|
166
|
- good fits for PMTs 1,2,4. PMT3 fits having a hard time
|
|
167
|
- width for 2nd PE peak is far too broad
|
|
168
|
- PMT3 gain is a bit different, peaks closer together
|
|
169
|
- constrain range the width is allowed to vary in for 2nd PE fit?
|
|
170
|
- can try a manual fit to see if it works better
|
|
171
|
|
|
172
|
Next meeting
|
|
173
|
-----------
|
|
174
|
- 22-Aug-04 at 11:30 Eastern, after RC meeting
|
|
175
|
- Before Gordon Conf, after EIC meeting
|