|
1
|
Aug 17/22 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, Garth Huber, Vijay Kumar, Ali Usman, Nathan Heinrich,
|
|
10
|
Muhammad Junaid, Love Preet
|
|
11
|
CUA - Richard Trotta, Tanja Horn
|
|
12
|
JLab - Dave Gaskell
|
|
13
|
|
|
14
|
Richard Trotta Updates
|
|
15
|
----------------------
|
|
16
|
- Comparing PM, EM equations between SIMC and hcana
|
|
17
|
- showed some derivations comparing the equations in the two codes
|
|
18
|
- confirmed the PM equations have a flipped minus sign in SIMC versions
|
|
19
|
being used for pmx etc
|
|
20
|
- pmy and pmz look better, pmx seems to have some tail still
|
|
21
|
- However, it is very important to also be sure the coordinates are not
|
|
22
|
rotated, in addition to the sign change
|
|
23
|
- SIMC x is data y
|
|
24
|
- Sign flip and component flip
|
|
25
|
- Z along beam, x points down, y is beam left (SIMC co-ordinates)
|
|
26
|
|
|
27
|
- SIMC elastics analysis
|
|
28
|
- From W dist, very few inelastics
|
|
29
|
- From hcana, Emiss is -ve, secondary particle causing issues?
|
|
30
|
- shift in EM is almost certainly an offset issue, not real
|
|
31
|
- data EM wider than SIMC.
|
|
32
|
- Vijay saw it was wider than SIMC, but not by as much as Richard's
|
|
33
|
- Richard/Ali at higher momentum
|
|
34
|
- Are the "best" SHMS matrix elements being used here?
|
|
35
|
- Magnetic reconstruction matrix is probably the cause of the
|
|
36
|
broadening
|
|
37
|
- DG: EMiss vs SHMS delta might be a useful plot
|
|
38
|
- Check for unphysical correlations, e.g. that EM is not same
|
|
39
|
for all delta, or wiggles in correlations where they are
|
|
40
|
expected to be smooth
|
|
41
|
- Will post HeeP plots and write up on redmine
|
|
42
|
- Strongly looks like some magnetic optics reconstruction effect
|
|
43
|
- Will add EMiss/PMiss vs delta/xp/yp etc, look for wiggles and
|
|
44
|
correlations
|
|
45
|
- Will also check with Peter B if he saw anything like this in his
|
|
46
|
analysis of KaonLT data
|
|
47
|
|
|
48
|
Ali Usman Updates
|
|
49
|
-----------------
|
|
50
|
- In switching matrix elements, Online_PionLT uses a different SHMS matrix
|
|
51
|
element to the one Richard/Ali are using
|
|
52
|
- KaonLT was using Holly's matrix elements
|
|
53
|
- Online_PionLT is using Mark Jones updated matrix elements
|
|
54
|
- Ali is replaying data with Mark Jones' matrix elements
|
|
55
|
- These matrix elements are expliticly labelled by MJ as the ones that
|
|
56
|
should be used for the 2021 PionLT data
|
|
57
|
- A little unclear which matrix elements are "newer" though
|
|
58
|
- Waiting on replays to finish
|
|
59
|
- What about the HMS matrix elements?
|
|
60
|
- Some high HMS momenta in the settings Ali is looking at
|
|
61
|
- Haven't checked matrix elements here yet, will follow up with Jacob
|
|
62
|
- There are two lower momentum HMS matrix elements available, Jacob
|
|
63
|
recommends a certain one
|
|
64
|
- Compare with cdaq, see the one that is being used currently in
|
|
65
|
hcana.param
|
|
66
|
- Haven't tried plotting physics data yet, just looking at HeeP
|
|
67
|
- Richard/Ali discussed implementing efficiency script to the data
|
|
68
|
- When calculating normalized yields, should we apply it averaged to all fo
|
|
69
|
the data in a setting, or run-by-run?
|
|
70
|
- Yes, do it run by run
|
|
71
|
- In Fpi-2, we calculated an "effective beam charge"
|
|
72
|
Qeff=Q*effic*livetime, run by run, so the charge was scaled down,
|
|
73
|
rather than scaling up the observed counts
|
|
74
|
- also propagate the statistical and random errors run-by-run
|
|
75
|
- normalization systematic uncertainties should be dealt with at the end
|
|
76
|
|
|
77
|
Vijay Kumar Updates
|
|
78
|
-------------------
|
|
79
|
- HeeP study for 2.7, 3.6, 3.8, 4.5 and 4.9 GeV
|
|
80
|
- Low energy PionLT and KaonLT settings
|
|
81
|
- Offsets for each energy and angle offsets for each
|
|
82
|
- Large momentum offset at low SHMS momentum
|
|
83
|
- Small offset at moderate momentum
|
|
84
|
- Increases again at large momentum
|
|
85
|
- Similar in the energy offsets too
|
|
86
|
- Two points with 2.583 GeV/c SHMS momentum
|
|
87
|
- Two different offsets at the same momentum
|
|
88
|
- These two points are both from KaonLT (December 2018), 3.8 GeV and 4.9
|
|
89
|
GeV
|
|
90
|
- Implies SHMS is not reproducible, which is not the case
|
|
91
|
- Fix certain parameters, let others vary, based upon physics knowledge
|
|
92
|
- Can we find some consistent set of offsets?
|
|
93
|
- Can't just ignore two points because they don't fit the trend
|
|
94
|
- Do a new offset iteration on all five settings, try and get something
|
|
95
|
that is globally self consistent
|
|
96
|
- DG: In the past, could fit bulk of HMS settings with a single angle offset
|
|
97
|
- Single momentum offset until they reached higher momenta and saturation
|
|
98
|
effects came in
|
|
99
|
- no non-linearity in dipoles should exist at these momenta, don't
|
|
100
|
understand why the offset should be varying a low momenta
|
|
101
|
- i.e. the offset should depend on the physics of the spectrometer
|
|
102
|
(saturation) and should not be random, just to get agreement between
|
|
103
|
data and MC
|
|
104
|
- Should be able to get a consistent set, it doesn't have to be the
|
|
105
|
"optimal one" but rather an "acceptable and justifiable one"
|
|
106
|
- Vijay has an offset solution, but not the correct one yet
|
|
107
|
- Consider the five settings globally, not in isolation from each other
|
|
108
|
|
|
109
|
Nathan Heinrich Updates
|
|
110
|
-----------------------
|
|
111
|
- Prepping for comprehensive, no report
|
|
112
|
|
|
113
|
Muhammad Junaid Updates
|
|
114
|
-----------------------
|
|
115
|
- Working on runplan
|
|
116
|
- Comprehensive prep, no report
|
|
117
|
- Status page up to date?
|
|
118
|
- Stephen, working on adding the Q2 = 2.12 setting
|
|
119
|
|
|
120
|
Next Meeting - Aug 31 @ 11:30 Eastern/09:30 Regina time
|
|
121
|
- GH: this will likely be the last meeting at that time, and after the run is
|
|
122
|
over we should reconsider the meeting schedule
|
|
123
|
- KaonLT/PionLT related, but at different analysis stages, should we
|
|
124
|
divide the meetings? i.e. everyone is invited to both, but who gets to
|
|
125
|
present will be different
|
|
126
|
- KaonLT meeting one week, PionLT the next? Richard in particular thinks
|
|
127
|
this is a good idea
|
|
128
|
|
|
129
|
At end, Vijay shows a New Plot
|
|
130
|
------------------------------
|
|
131
|
- starting to look at possible t-phi binning for the physics data
|
|
132
|
- One binning for pion data, different one for kaon
|
|
133
|
- Don't look separately at L,R,C Add together left/center/right, see what
|
|
134
|
binning looks like
|
|
135
|
- Vijay asks to have a separate meeting where GH explains in more detail how
|
|
136
|
the SIMC model optimization is done
|
|
137
|
- GH: next week would be good
|
|
138
|
- the way it is done in practice probably differs a bit from how its
|
|
139
|
explained in theses,
|