|
1
|
Feb 16/23 PionLT/KaonLT Analysis Meeting Notes
|
|
2
|
----------------------------------------------
|
|
3
|
(Notes by GH and SJDK)
|
|
4
|
|
|
5
|
Today: KaonLT 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 - Stephen Kay, Garth Huber, Ali Usman, Alicia Postuma,
|
|
13
|
Nathan Heinrich, Vijay Kumar, Love Preet, Muhammad Junaid
|
|
14
|
JLab - Dave Gaskell
|
|
15
|
Ohio - Jacob Murphy, Julie Roche
|
|
16
|
CUA - Richard Trotta, Tanja Horn
|
|
17
|
CSULA - Konrad Aniol
|
|
18
|
|
|
19
|
Richard Updates
|
|
20
|
---------------
|
|
21
|
Changes to PM/EM calcs in SIMC
|
|
22
|
- Debugged ROOT issue, was overwriting old histos
|
|
23
|
- DG: Script should write new tree and retain old tree, so you can compare
|
|
24
|
them directly
|
|
25
|
- Results have some unexpected featuers, will discuss with DG in more detail
|
|
26
|
tomorrow morning
|
|
27
|
|
|
28
|
LT-sep code
|
|
29
|
- rewriting the part of code that tabulates the normalized yields, rathern than
|
|
30
|
debugging Bill's version
|
|
31
|
- GH: yes, this makes sense. The yield calculation is experiment specific,
|
|
32
|
and is best to be written from scratch
|
|
33
|
- it doesn't matter which variable is integrated to determine the yield, but
|
|
34
|
as Vijay found earier, it's good to try integrating more than one variable
|
|
35
|
as an initial test, to make sure they give identical results
|
|
36
|
|
|
37
|
Batch job submission implemented and working
|
|
38
|
|
|
39
|
PID Cuts, CT Cuts
|
|
40
|
- Left/Right/Cent
|
|
41
|
- Dummy + rand sub
|
|
42
|
- Does order of cuts, diamond vs dummy/random matter?
|
|
43
|
- Diamond cut is set based upon shape of low espilon diamond, it is
|
|
44
|
defined by spectrometer acceptance, and will be the same for
|
|
45
|
dummy/random
|
|
46
|
- DG - Do diamond cut before the dummy/random subtraction since the cuts
|
|
47
|
need to be applied on an event-by-event basis
|
|
48
|
- Diamond cuts - > switch order of this, do this before dummy + rand
|
|
49
|
- Phi/t binning -> also do this before the dummy/random sub
|
|
50
|
- Get sample, then do dummy + random subtraction per phi/t bin
|
|
51
|
- obtain yields per phi/t bin after applying all corrections and cuts
|
|
52
|
|
|
53
|
- Ran all SIMC for all Q2 values for the kaon analysis
|
|
54
|
- 5.5, 4.4
|
|
55
|
- With all of this info, *should* be able to run fortran script
|
|
56
|
|
|
57
|
- TH: Q - Looking at CT spectrum, two random peaks near first central peak
|
|
58
|
- RT: Seeing similar with other runs
|
|
59
|
- TH: Q was what these were, was this resolved?
|
|
60
|
- RT: Seems to be an issue with the right setting, some bug for this?
|
|
61
|
- CT cut issue?
|
|
62
|
- Right setting CT cuts don't seem to be getting applied correctly?
|
|
63
|
|
|
64
|
Ali Updates
|
|
65
|
-----------
|
|
66
|
Follow up from last week's slides re. cal and HMS-Cer efficiencies
|
|
67
|
- Reviewed run sheets for all HeeP singles data in KaonLT run periods
|
|
68
|
- Selected a few settings where momentum of HMS < pion threshold
|
|
69
|
- Using these to get efficiency values
|
|
70
|
- had some issues with replay script and needed to resubmit the jobs
|
|
71
|
- Promises lots of plots next week
|
|
72
|
|
|
73
|
Vijay Updates
|
|
74
|
-------------
|
|
75
|
Checked t resolution using SIMC
|
|
76
|
- Q2 = 0.38, low eps, central SHMS setting
|
|
77
|
- How wide is second t bin? 0.004 -> ~4x larger than resolution (and this is
|
|
78
|
probably the worst case)
|
|
79
|
- t resolution does get worse with bin
|
|
80
|
- GH: Should compute ratio of width of bin to resolution
|
|
81
|
- i.e. how many sigma is each bin in width
|
|
82
|
- a check for a high epsilon setting should also be done, since the beam
|
|
83
|
energy is higher, the expected resolution will be worse
|
|
84
|
|
|
85
|
t-/phi binning
|
|
86
|
- 8 t bins
|
|
87
|
- 16 phi bins, same as in Tanja's thesis
|
|
88
|
|
|
89
|
- Looked at LTsep fortran scripts
|
|
90
|
|
|
91
|
- DG: Make upper edge of MMPi peak cut bigger - 0.98 upper edge rather than
|
|
92
|
0.96, so as to be in the flatter part of the radiative tail, since there is
|
|
93
|
no evidence of inelastic events in the data
|
|
94
|
- Shouldn't make a huge difference in the yields, but this will reduce the
|
|
95
|
cut sensitivity systematic error, which is desirable
|
|
96
|
|
|
97
|
Jacob Updates
|
|
98
|
-------------
|
|
99
|
- Ill for last week
|
|
100
|
- Get well soon!
|
|
101
|
|
|
102
|
Nathan Updates
|
|
103
|
--------------
|
|
104
|
Follow up to LD- setting finding from last week, where the number of counts
|
|
105
|
after RefCut optiization was lower than Online stats
|
|
106
|
- Wrong NGC cut, fixed
|
|
107
|
- ... but this didn't change anything!
|
|
108
|
- GH: Should check online conditions to see if we're comparing things that
|
|
109
|
are really the same #runs, etc
|
|
110
|
- NH: it should be possible to reanalyze the data using online settings to
|
|
111
|
check
|
|
112
|
- one question last week was if runs were missing between online/offline
|
|
113
|
- NH: checked this, and couldn't find anything wrong
|
|
114
|
- definitely merits more investigation, since if the #events is really lower
|
|
115
|
than online then there is something wrong with the RefCut optimization for
|
|
116
|
this setting
|
|
117
|
|
|
118
|
Junaid Updates
|
|
119
|
--------------
|
|
120
|
- Submitted NP assignments, should be caught up by next week
|
|
121
|
- Will look at calibrations shortly
|
|
122
|
- Set up weekly JJN meetings similar to the RAV meetings
|
|
123
|
- Wednesday afternoon
|
|
124
|
- 14:00 Regina/15:00 Eastern
|
|
125
|
|
|
126
|
|
|
127
|
Next Meeting
|
|
128
|
------------
|
|
129
|
Thur Feb 23 @ 17:00 Eastern/16:00 Regina/15:00 Mtn/14:00 Pacific
|
|
130
|
- PionLT will go first
|
|
131
|
|