|
1
|
Aug 31/22 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, Muhammad Junaid, Vijay Kumar, Garth Huber, Ali Usman
|
|
10
|
CUA - Richard Trotta
|
|
11
|
FIU - Pete Markowitz
|
|
12
|
|
|
13
|
Richard Updates
|
|
14
|
---------------
|
|
15
|
- Luminosity study Yield calculations
|
|
16
|
- Total Charge
|
|
17
|
- some EDTM-LT still don't make sense, discussing with Jacob
|
|
18
|
- EDTM live times slightly different between KaonLT and PionLT
|
|
19
|
- Due to event type changes?
|
|
20
|
- SHMS = Event Type 1 and 3
|
|
21
|
- Potentially can't disentangle types 1 and 3 uniquely
|
|
22
|
- HMS = Event Type 2
|
|
23
|
- How do prescales work in combination with this?
|
|
24
|
- GH suggestion: for the case where EventType 1 and 3 have same
|
|
25
|
tdcTimeRaw, divide up these events according to the relevant prescale
|
|
26
|
ratios and see how well this works
|
|
27
|
- CPULT
|
|
28
|
- Using this rather than EDTM-LT
|
|
29
|
- DaveG suggested just using this across the board
|
|
30
|
- Assume what electronic LT should be based on total LT
|
|
31
|
- Extrapolate
|
|
32
|
- Tracking efficiency
|
|
33
|
- Lumi uncertainties being updated
|
|
34
|
- Full uncertainty calculations for HeeP and luminosity studies still
|
|
35
|
underway. For example, need to include uncertainty in BCM calibration,
|
|
36
|
particularly the offset at low current
|
|
37
|
|
|
38
|
- Lumi Scan Results of Yield vs Beam Current/Rate
|
|
39
|
- Low current setting improved a lot.
|
|
40
|
- Overall, carbon lumis looking better although still not flat (need errors on them yet)
|
|
41
|
- Tracking is also an issue
|
|
42
|
- Some cuts need adjusting still
|
|
43
|
- Etracknorm
|
|
44
|
- Beta
|
|
45
|
- No consistent trends in the Lumi, which is also still a problem
|
|
46
|
- all of them use TLT, not CPULT
|
|
47
|
|
|
48
|
Ali Updates
|
|
49
|
-----------
|
|
50
|
- High Q2 HeeP-COIN settings w/Richard
|
|
51
|
- All resuts include efficiencies
|
|
52
|
- Need to give eqn next time, so we can see exactly what was done
|
|
53
|
|
|
54
|
- 6.2 GeV Results
|
|
55
|
- HMS and SHMS xfp/yfp, slight offset
|
|
56
|
- HMS and SHMS xpfp/ypfp look ok for both spectrometers
|
|
57
|
- Pmiss looks very different, EXP wider and flat compared to SIMC
|
|
58
|
- Emiss also looks very different
|
|
59
|
- Seems to be PMz that's the big issue, PMx, PMy look more similar
|
|
60
|
- This difference would filter through to the Emiss and Pmiss plots
|
|
61
|
- PMy also looks a little flat?
|
|
62
|
|
|
63
|
- Replay comparisons to investigate the source of the Exp/MC PM, EM issue
|
|
64
|
Test #1:
|
|
65
|
- asked Vijay to replay an 8.2 GeV setting and process through python analysis
|
|
66
|
- Results look basically the same
|
|
67
|
- So doesn't seem to be something tied to the replay
|
|
68
|
- Rules out calibrations, param files etc -> Not quite
|
|
69
|
- It rules out a DIFFERENCE in the files being used as the cause
|
|
70
|
|
|
71
|
Test #2:
|
|
72
|
- DaveG suggested to look at delta vs PM/EM to investigate saturation effects
|
|
73
|
- PM/EM should be independent of delta if optics are correct
|
|
74
|
- 6.2GeV: pHMS=3.571, pSHMS=3.486
|
|
75
|
- not surprising no saturation effect
|
|
76
|
- 10.6GeV: pHMS=6.390, pSHMS=4.840
|
|
77
|
- Looks pretty flat across delta, no obvious correlation
|
|
78
|
- Because these distributions are just raw replay quantities, this implies
|
|
79
|
*strongly* that this is an issue with the replay
|
|
80
|
|
|
81
|
Test #3:
|
|
82
|
- Low Q2 analysis. Try to reproduce Vijay's analysis in Ali/Richard framework
|
|
83
|
- Full Analysis including replaying the data and generating SIMC files etc
|
|
84
|
- Results show EM/PM deviation from Vijay's analysis!
|
|
85
|
- Ali's Distributions are wider than Vijay's
|
|
86
|
- Difference in replay files
|
|
87
|
- Vijay had better agreement with SIMC
|
|
88
|
- PMy and PMz are the two that look very different
|
|
89
|
- Most likely explanation: Vijay seems to have some different (but correct)
|
|
90
|
set of param files, *specifically* for low Q2
|
|
91
|
- Files for High Q2 seem to match (test #1)
|
|
92
|
- Stephen - My opinion is that it's only really the replay step itself
|
|
93
|
that could be causing these issues given that it's a difference in shape
|
|
94
|
So now the problem is that we need to hunt down the param file that's the issue.
|
|
95
|
- A *quick suggestion* on trying to figure out what's going on with the
|
|
96
|
Emiss/Pmiss difference:
|
|
97
|
Vijay and Ali should pick some low Q2 run number, and then replay it
|
|
98
|
The output file itself isn't really that important, but we might as
|
|
99
|
well make it to compare too
|
|
100
|
- What's more important is the initial info dump from hcana. You should
|
|
101
|
copy *all* of this into a text file and do a diff between the two
|
|
102
|
- Hunt through carefully and identify any different param files in use
|
|
103
|
- You should also verify that any param files that *look* like they're
|
|
104
|
the same actually are between your two repositories. Again, just do a
|
|
105
|
diff between the files
|
|
106
|
- You should also compare the std.kin values for the run in question
|
|
107
|
|
|
108
|
Test #4:
|
|
109
|
- send high Q2 data to Vijay for him to process
|
|
110
|
- waiting for results
|
|
111
|
- GH: This seems like a useful check, but predicts you won't see any
|
|
112
|
difference, due to what was already learned in Test #1
|
|
113
|
|
|
114
|
Vijay Updates
|
|
115
|
-------------
|
|
116
|
- No updates
|
|
117
|
- Prepping for comittee meeting even though that's not for another month
|
|
118
|
- Working on setup of LT separation software
|
|
119
|
- Will start Lumi study after progress report is done
|
|
120
|
- kinematic offsets discussed at last meeting not yet adjusted
|
|
121
|
- will have new values by time of committee meeting
|
|
122
|
- Discussion on diamond cuts
|
|
123
|
- Check Jacob's new code
|
|
124
|
- Fits 4 lines to the low epsilon diamond, applies cuts to data
|
|
125
|
- Preliminary t-phi binning of data
|
|
126
|
- Important, but need to finalise other studies first
|
|
127
|
- Spending too much time on issues that can be left until later. Need to
|
|
128
|
concentrate more on the needed preliminaries for the data analysis.
|
|
129
|
- These diversions are actually costing you more time, not speeding things up!
|
|
130
|
- Please give a *high priority* to tracking down the discrepancy from Test #3.
|
|
131
|
It is good news that the discrepancy was identified, as it gives a tool to
|
|
132
|
investigate what is wrong. It is VERY IMPORTANT to fix this soon, as it
|
|
133
|
is delaying many other studies
|
|
134
|
|
|
135
|
Junaid
|
|
136
|
------
|
|
137
|
- No updates
|
|
138
|
- Working on the lumi scan - Goes live tonight!
|
|
139
|
|
|
140
|
Next meeting
|
|
141
|
------------
|
|
142
|
- GH proposes a meeting next week, as the following week will be difficult
|
|
143
|
due to our travel back to Canada, etc.
|
|
144
|
- Thursday September 8 @ 11:30 Eastern/09:30 Regina time
|
|
145
|
- Hoping to see at this meeting:
|
|
146
|
- improvements in Lumi from Richard
|
|
147
|
- PM/EM debugging progress from Ali+Vijay
|