Project

General

Profile

Kaon LT Meetings » mtg_22aug31.txt

Garth Huber, 08/31/2022 08:34 PM

 
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
(76-76/430)