|
1
|
Nov 9/22 PionLT/KaonLT Analysis Meeting Notes
|
|
2
|
---------------------------------------------
|
|
3
|
(Notes by GH and SJDK)
|
|
4
|
|
|
5
|
Today: PionLT will be discussed first
|
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
Please remember to post your slides at:
|
|
8
|
https://redmine.jlab.org/projects/kltexp/wiki/Kaon_LT_Meetings
|
|
9
|
|
|
10
|
Present
|
|
11
|
-------
|
|
12
|
Regina - Garth Huber, Stephen Kay, Ali Usman, Alicia Postuma, Love Preet,
|
|
13
|
Vijay Kumar, Nathan Heinrich, Muhammad Junaid
|
|
14
|
CSULA - Konrad Aniol, Johnathan Conrad
|
|
15
|
CUA - Richard Trotta, Tanja Horn
|
|
16
|
JLab - Dave Gaskell
|
|
17
|
FIU - Pete Markowitz
|
|
18
|
SBU - Wenliang (Bill) Li
|
|
19
|
Ohio - Jacob Murphy, Julie Roche
|
|
20
|
|
|
21
|
Bill LT Software Tutorial - Recorded
|
|
22
|
------------------------------------
|
|
23
|
The recording is posted at:
|
|
24
|
http://lichen.phys.uregina.ca/~huberg/kaon/LT_tutorial_20221109_1920x1080.mp4
|
|
25
|
|
|
26
|
- LT separation overview
|
|
27
|
- based on c++/ROOT
|
|
28
|
- cross-checked translation of PAW kumac codes used in Fpi-2 analysis
|
|
29
|
- Tanja's kumacs were different than Jochen's (Fpi-1), but separation method was similar
|
|
30
|
- 8 phi bins, 3 u (t in our case) bins
|
|
31
|
- the #bins is based on statistics and kinematic coverage, yours will be
|
|
32
|
different!
|
|
33
|
- each (W,Q2) setting is done separately
|
|
34
|
- ubin_interval: specifies ranges of u-bins for each (W,Q2) setting
|
|
35
|
- Background subtraction
|
|
36
|
- will be less complex in Pion/Kaon case, fewer simulation inputs needed
|
|
37
|
- 10 step flow chart
|
|
38
|
- Efficiency (run by run)
|
|
39
|
- Yield extraction in root_ana folder
|
|
40
|
- Plot combination
|
|
41
|
- BG subtraction (bin-by-bin in Bill's case)
|
|
42
|
- Sum angles
|
|
43
|
- ...
|
|
44
|
|
|
45
|
- Some files in the git repo are archival, should be moved to separate folder
|
|
46
|
when a HallC version of repo is made
|
|
47
|
|
|
48
|
- Richard points out that lots of cuts done in Bill's code are already done in our analysis
|
|
49
|
- Rather than removing cut function, Bill recommends just adding in a "blank"
|
|
50
|
cut that does nothing and applying it to the incoming trees
|
|
51
|
|
|
52
|
- Angles added and dummy target subtracted in the same script
|
|
53
|
- scalers_fpi contains scaler text files run-by-run for each setting
|
|
54
|
|
|
55
|
- original analysis structure of Fpi-2 PAW kumacs is retained, so everything is
|
|
56
|
in separate files. Bill recommends to NOT consolidate files, since
|
|
57
|
everything is working well and follows structure of previously tested code
|
|
58
|
- analysis.cpp is verified translation of kumac code
|
|
59
|
- In analysis.cpp file, just assign cuts to Dummy cuts, since we will have
|
|
60
|
cuts done elsewhere
|
|
61
|
- the code setup allows run-by-run efficiencies to be applied in the normalization
|
|
62
|
|
|
63
|
- Existing LT sep code does cuts in a somewhat problematic way
|
|
64
|
- Uses ROOT trim functions to apply cuts
|
|
65
|
- T->Draw("...", "...Cuts...") etc
|
|
66
|
- This is fine for quickly drawing plots, but not ideal for final
|
|
67
|
analysis
|
|
68
|
- it was only done this way because Bill was a grad student, and learning
|
|
69
|
how to do things
|
|
70
|
- now he's more experienced and understands that going forward, this
|
|
71
|
should be changed to an *Event-Based IF loop*
|
|
72
|
|
|
73
|
- Once analysis makes root ana etc, this is the only input for subsequent steps?
|
|
74
|
- Yes, from that point this is all that's needed
|
|
75
|
|
|
76
|
- Bill suggests to first look at Heep code to understand the structure of the code
|
|
77
|
- Bill will move setup examples to somewhere on the farm
|
|
78
|
- Stephen will copy to c-kaonlt or similar
|
|
79
|
- Sample data, sample simulations
|
|
80
|
|
|
81
|
- How are SIMC weights re-calculated?
|
|
82
|
- For each iteration, don't re-run SIMC, just recalculate the weights
|
|
83
|
|
|
84
|
Jacob Updates
|
|
85
|
-------------
|
|
86
|
Optics:
|
|
87
|
- meeting with Holly on Thursday
|
|
88
|
- trying to get improved ME for HMS=5.9, 6.8 GeV/c
|
|
89
|
- rewriting some scripts to make them more user friendly
|
|
90
|
- Xsieve resolution is much worse than Ysieve
|
|
91
|
- x resolution for upstream foil isn't great even at -8 - -6.5 in delta
|
|
92
|
- Mark J has seen similar issues
|
|
93
|
- will have more results next week
|
|
94
|
|
|
95
|
- Going through standard.kinematics
|
|
96
|
- 2022 easier, some missing angles from 2021
|
|
97
|
- 1 in 5 settings or so has angle off by ~ 0.01
|
|
98
|
- Should be done by today for 2022, 2021 is already done
|
|
99
|
|
|
100
|
- Need to set up hallc_replay with PionLT param files
|
|
101
|
- Offline branch exists
|
|
102
|
https://github.com/JeffersonLab/hallc_replay_lt/tree/LTSep_Analysis_2022
|
|
103
|
- Should set up DB/Param directories in similar manner to KaonLT
|
|
104
|
- https://github.com/JeffersonLab/hallc_replay_lt/tree/LTSep_Analysis_2022/DBASE/COIN/DB_KaonLT
|
|
105
|
- https://github.com/JeffersonLab/hallc_replay_lt/tree/LTSep_Analysis_2022/DBASE/COIN/DB_PionLT
|
|
106
|
- As an example
|
|
107
|
|
|
108
|
- Determing Pc (central momentum) offsets
|
|
109
|
- Apply FP cuts, electron PID cuts
|
|
110
|
- etottracknorm > 0.8
|
|
111
|
- npeSum > 2
|
|
112
|
- abs(delta)<10
|
|
113
|
- Graphical cut to select elastics along W vs xfp and W vs xpfp
|
|
114
|
- Narrower cut placed to select central momentum region Mark Jones' request
|
|
115
|
- abs(xfp) < 2
|
|
116
|
- abs(delta) < 2
|
|
117
|
- Using FP variables and optical matrix, recalculate W using updated
|
|
118
|
central momentum (set by hand)
|
|
119
|
- choose value that gives best proton mass
|
|
120
|
- offset is difference between Optimized Pc and Set Pc
|
|
121
|
- Jacob outlined procedure and sent to Vijay/Ali
|
|
122
|
|
|
123
|
- Garth Q - SIMC calculation same as hcana calculations, still on the list?
|
|
124
|
- Richard - Yes, looked at but not implemented yet
|
|
125
|
|
|
126
|
Nathan Updates
|
|
127
|
--------------
|
|
128
|
- Showed draft slides for PhD committee meeting, received many comments
|
|
129
|
|
|
130
|
Junaid Updates
|
|
131
|
--------------
|
|
132
|
- Working on PhD committee slides
|
|
133
|
- draft not shown
|
|
134
|
|
|
135
|
Vijay Updates
|
|
136
|
-------------
|
|
137
|
Luminosity scaler study from PionLT (summer 2019)
|
|
138
|
- Carbon lumi data from 2.7 GeV
|
|
139
|
- Using EL_REAL triggers
|
|
140
|
- Both spectrometers behave in similar way, which is good
|
|
141
|
- Dip at low current should be fixable by adjusting the current offset
|
|
142
|
|
|
143
|
- Working on non-tracked and tracked normalized yields next, to see if they
|
|
144
|
behave similarly
|
|
145
|
- Also going to look at BCM offsets
|
|
146
|
|
|
147
|
- Stephen/Garth/Dave:
|
|
148
|
- Can't apply a run-by-run current offset
|
|
149
|
- BCM calibration has large uncertainty at low current <10uA
|
|
150
|
- Offset is applied to ALL runs or NONE of them
|
|
151
|
- It is the SAME BCM so cannot apply different current offset to different
|
|
152
|
runs
|
|
153
|
|
|
154
|
- There is second effect going on which is giving rise to the positive
|
|
155
|
trend, need to also look at the electronic livetimes
|
|
156
|
|
|
157
|
- Best to adjust one thing at a time
|
|
158
|
- Get the low current sorted first using the BCM current offset
|
|
159
|
- Should be fixable with a current offset adjustment
|
|
160
|
- This is by far the dominant effect at low current
|
|
161
|
- Then investigate the remaining effect at larger I
|
|
162
|
|
|
163
|
Next Meeting
|
|
164
|
------------
|
|
165
|
Wed Nov 16 @ 8:15 Eastern/7:15 Regina/5:15 Pacific
|
|
166
|
- KaonLT will go first
|