|
1
|
Sept 8/22 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, Muhammad Junaid,
|
|
10
|
Alicia Postuma, Jacob Murphy, Ali Usman, Love Preet
|
|
11
|
CUA - Richard Trotta, Tanja Horn
|
|
12
|
Ohio - Jacob Murphy
|
|
13
|
CSULA - Konrad Aniol
|
|
14
|
|
|
15
|
Richard Updates
|
|
16
|
---------------
|
|
17
|
- Lumi 10.6GeV Analysis
|
|
18
|
- PID cuts updated
|
|
19
|
- Scaler, Without, and with tracking cuts
|
|
20
|
- Statistical uncertainties now too (but not yet including statistical from
|
|
21
|
efficiencies)
|
|
22
|
- Normalized yield results vs. Current for HMS-Carbon
|
|
23
|
- Blue: total LT, red: CPULT
|
|
24
|
- Scaler vs Event (no tracking) vs Event (tracking)
|
|
25
|
- Large discrepancy between the two, with the CPULT results being MUCH
|
|
26
|
better
|
|
27
|
- SHMS-Carbon analysis shows "reverse boiling" of 14% @ 70uA
|
|
28
|
- SHMS sees a trend even with poor TLT runs removed
|
|
29
|
- Some Lumi runs are not great
|
|
30
|
- <90 seconds of "good" beam on time after current cuts
|
|
31
|
- Bi-modal distribution of current within some runs
|
|
32
|
- GH note afterward: Yes, the 10.6GeV beam current was extremely
|
|
33
|
unstable. The 8,6GeV lumi scans should be much better!
|
|
34
|
- some CPULT as low as 75%, possible due to excessive EDTM rates for some
|
|
35
|
low current settings. EDTM should have smaller effect in high current
|
|
36
|
runs, where PS is set high
|
|
37
|
- Jacob asks about CPULT eqn used. Does it include Carlos' Poisson
|
|
38
|
correction discussed in his thesis?
|
|
39
|
- It sounds like the answer is No, but Richard should double-check
|
|
40
|
- See large inverse boiling trend with scalers in some scans which goes away
|
|
41
|
in untracked and tracked analysis
|
|
42
|
- Bad scaler yields correspond with CPULT drops
|
|
43
|
- This is *very* worrisome, as the scaler analysis should be insensitive
|
|
44
|
to deadtime effects. *Definitely* needs more investigation!
|
|
45
|
|
|
46
|
- Next up:
|
|
47
|
- Offsets
|
|
48
|
- Lumi analysis, cut iterations
|
|
49
|
- HeeP/Lumi uncertainties
|
|
50
|
- Bill's code
|
|
51
|
- HeeP Singels efficiencies issues
|
|
52
|
- Calorimeter Calibrations
|
|
53
|
- HGC efficiency calculation
|
|
54
|
|
|
55
|
- Vijay: TLT vs CPULT, which should be used?
|
|
56
|
- Dave G recommended CPULT previously
|
|
57
|
- Generally fairly consistent between the two
|
|
58
|
- Garth: EDTM system between KaonLT/PionLT, major difference between the two
|
|
59
|
experiments. This will be one of the causes of larger systematic error in
|
|
60
|
KaonLT compared to PionLT
|
|
61
|
- EDTM system updates were only ready for 2021 run, low Q2 PionLT (summer
|
|
62
|
2019) still had the old verion?
|
|
63
|
- As a result, the uncertainty in TLT might be too big to use in some
|
|
64
|
parts of KaonLT, and we would have to use CPULT with a correction to
|
|
65
|
account for Electronic DT
|
|
66
|
|
|
67
|
- FADC reference timing and CoinTime changes were done during the early parts
|
|
68
|
of KaonLT, as deficiencies in the SHMS+HMS commissioning setup were identified
|
|
69
|
- CoinTIme change was after the 10.6 GeV, but before the 3.9 GeV and 4.8 GeV
|
|
70
|
- CT changes
|
|
71
|
- Leading edge vs falling edge
|
|
72
|
- Inverted signal
|
|
73
|
- DaveG indicates (afterward) that this was error introduced summer 2018,
|
|
74
|
were ALL reference time signals were inverted. The main effect of this
|
|
75
|
was crappy CoinTime resolution, as its more sensitive to jitter in
|
|
76
|
signal timing
|
|
77
|
- Hodoscope timing changes
|
|
78
|
- Mark changed how the different hodoscope planes define the FADC reference time
|
|
79
|
- intial timing had each plane with a different time, with S1X last,
|
|
80
|
leading to multiple peaks
|
|
81
|
- later, after more understanding, the timing was changed so that most
|
|
82
|
events are in a single peak
|
|
83
|
- DaveG thinks this occurred before J/Psi run in early 2019
|
|
84
|
- All S1X were were synchronized by Simona at some point, to reduce
|
|
85
|
timing jitter between different paddles
|
|
86
|
- this allowed the S1X, S1Y timing windows to be narrowed, which then
|
|
87
|
helped reduce Electronic DeadTime (significant impact in some cases)
|
|
88
|
- DaveG thinks this was done in summer 2018, before KaonLT
|
|
89
|
- Someone should identify exactly when these confiugration changes occured
|
|
90
|
- Ali will check, it would be helpful for Vijay to assist, since neither
|
|
91
|
were present at the beginning of KaonLT data taking
|
|
92
|
- Stephen skimmed the logbooks, some potential entries to look at (to begin with)
|
|
93
|
- https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3629548
|
|
94
|
- https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3630734
|
|
95
|
- https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3630346
|
|
96
|
- https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3614446
|
|
97
|
- https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3614481
|
|
98
|
- https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3626160
|
|
99
|
- https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3626194
|
|
100
|
- Could add issues to wiki once found?
|
|
101
|
- There are status pages for KaonLT, Summer 2019 PionLT
|
|
102
|
- Add information to this
|
|
103
|
|
|
104
|
Ali Updates
|
|
105
|
-----------
|
|
106
|
- High Q2 HeePCoin analysis
|
|
107
|
- Ali/Richard looking at 6.2/8.2/10.6 GeV HeePCoin settings
|
|
108
|
- Summarizes the Emiss/Pmiss distribution issues discussed last week
|
|
109
|
- Debug Test #5
|
|
110
|
- Stephen redid tests 1-4, discovered that files in high Q2 comparison
|
|
111
|
test were different, confirmed that the problem is in hcana, not python
|
|
112
|
script analysis
|
|
113
|
- problem was a wrong gbeam.param file, which was for polarized 3He
|
|
114
|
target data taking, where there is a large solenoidal field at the target
|
|
115
|
- now have much narrower EM/PM peaks, which will allow the offsets to
|
|
116
|
finally be determined from these data
|
|
117
|
- Need consistent set of offsets
|
|
118
|
- Momentum offset changes if the magnets saturate
|
|
119
|
- Magnet settings for each beam energy
|
|
120
|
- 10p6: p_h = -6.590, p_p = +4.484
|
|
121
|
- 8p2: p_h = -4.672, p_p = +4.371
|
|
122
|
- 6p2: p_h = -3.571, p_p = +3.486
|
|
123
|
- 4p9: p_h = -3.124, p_p = +2.583
|
|
124
|
- 3p8: p_h = -2.026, p_p = +2.583
|
|
125
|
|
|
126
|
- What is the correct gbeam.param file?
|
|
127
|
- issue is that there are multiple versions of some variables in Vijay's
|
|
128
|
version of the 2018 file
|
|
129
|
- need to confirm that used file for KaonLT is correct
|
|
130
|
- Dave G seemed to imply (offline) that this is the one should use:
|
|
131
|
- https://github.com/JeffersonLab/hallc_replay_lt/blob/LTSep_Analysis_2022/PARAM/GEN/KaonLT_PARAM/gbeam_fall18.param
|
|
132
|
- Implied we should use a different file altogether for Summer2019
|
|
133
|
- possibly we need to generate a new one for PionLT 2021-22, from harp scan data
|
|
134
|
|
|
135
|
- Emiss vs delta(HMS,SHMS) plots have a tilt (8.2 GeV setting)
|
|
136
|
- Happened for all settings except 10.6 GeV
|
|
137
|
- Should also add plot of HMS vs SHMS delta
|
|
138
|
- Tanja mentions we saw the effect of raster offset causing a MM vs delta
|
|
139
|
correlation in Fpi2
|
|
140
|
- error in raster correction causes an offset in vertical angle at target
|
|
141
|
- strong correlation of angle vs momentum in Heep-Coin makes the effect
|
|
142
|
visible in Heep MM vs delta
|
|
143
|
- the error would be present also in the pi/K data, but the effect would
|
|
144
|
be mostly in worse MM reconstruction resolution, not seen as a clear
|
|
145
|
correlation, as this would be disguised by the 3-body (rather than
|
|
146
|
2-body) kinematics
|
|
147
|
|
|
148
|
- How do we apply correct raster offsets?
|
|
149
|
- In gbeam.param, beam on target positions are commented out?
|
|
150
|
- Do these actually adjust anything? Should we set them to our nominal values?
|
|
151
|
- Check and follow up with Dave G
|
|
152
|
|
|
153
|
- Efficiencies file
|
|
154
|
- Run by run efficiency, propagated error should be statistical
|
|
155
|
uncertainties that are added in quadrature to statistical uncertainty of data
|
|
156
|
|
|
157
|
Vijay Updates
|
|
158
|
- Working on Lumi studies, no updates
|
|
159
|
|
|
160
|
Junaid/Nathan Updates
|
|
161
|
- No updates, comprehensive preparation
|
|
162
|
|
|
163
|
Jacob Updates
|
|
164
|
- No big updates
|
|
165
|
- Lumi scripts + calibrations
|
|
166
|
|
|
167
|
Stephen
|
|
168
|
- Some discussion on topics to be discussed in October Hall C Analysis Meeting
|
|
169
|
- meeting is planned to be ~2 hours long
|
|
170
|
- 6 to 8 talks in total (GH thinks this might be too many)
|
|
171
|
- Richard Lumi scan and Livetimes
|
|
172
|
- Jacob EDTM and Prescale studies
|
|
173
|
- Ali/Vijay gbeam.param
|
|
174
|
|
|
175
|
Next Meeting:
|
|
176
|
- Wed Sept 21 at 06:00 Pacific/07:00 SK/09:00 Eastern
|