|
1
|
pionLT/kaonLT meeting minutes. June 1, 2023
|
|
2
|
|
|
3
|
Nathan:
|
|
4
|
|
|
5
|
Working on finalizing HMS Cherenkov calibration, but analyzed wrong setting
|
|
6
|
accidentally. Will come back to this next week.
|
|
7
|
|
|
8
|
Working on SHMS NGC calibration. Petr's code doesn't work out of the box since
|
|
9
|
it was developed for aerogel detector. Since it needs to be modified anyway,
|
|
10
|
working on re-writing to make it easier to read and maintain. Not quite
|
|
11
|
working yet, but in progress.
|
|
12
|
|
|
13
|
Junaid:
|
|
14
|
|
|
15
|
Completed course-related work. Back to work on the SHMS drift chamber
|
|
16
|
calibrations. The HMS is complete for 2021 and 2022 data.
|
|
17
|
|
|
18
|
DG asks if there's a calibration status page somewhere (on the Redmine I guess).
|
|
19
|
There isn't now, but might happen in the future.
|
|
20
|
|
|
21
|
Vijay:
|
|
22
|
|
|
23
|
Looking at Lumi runs from summer 2019 (only took data at 2.7 GeV). Took
|
|
24
|
pre-scaled singles (no coincidences) using coincidence DAQ. EDTM interpretation
|
|
25
|
might be challenging because of this. At the moment, significant rate
|
|
26
|
dependence in the tracked yields. Looking at scalers might rule out simple
|
|
27
|
problems, like BCM calibration issues.
|
|
28
|
|
|
29
|
Richard:
|
|
30
|
|
|
31
|
More Lumi discussion - showed SHMS/HMS plots from last week. This week, looked
|
|
32
|
at rate dependence of coincidence yield for 1 setting (I failed to write down
|
|
33
|
kinematics) - no apparent rate dependence, but rates were pretty low (<1 kHZ).
|
|
34
|
DG suggests looking at a higher rate setting also where effects might be larger.
|
|
35
|
|
|
36
|
Still working on large root file issue.
|
|
37
|
|
|
38
|
Will move on to implementation of SHMS HGC acceptance dependent cuts/efficiency.
|
|
39
|
|
|
40
|
Ali:
|
|
41
|
|
|
42
|
Working on Heep analysis. A momentum offset of -0.14% in PHMS and -0.25% in
|
|
43
|
PSHMS seems to work well for W for Ebeam=10.6 GeV and 6.2 GeV. Other
|
|
44
|
observables (Em, Pmx, Pmz) are improved, but still not optimal. 8.2 GeV
|
|
45
|
has very large W/Em offsets - not sure why. Things to look at for that:
|
|
46
|
1. Beam energy compared to HALLC:p (looked at this during the meeting -
|
|
47
|
looks ok)
|
|
48
|
2. Kinematic database (wrong P in standard.kinematics?)
|
|
49
|
|
|
50
|
Note that at Ebeam=10.6 GeV, HMS well into saturation - this might mean we can't
|
|
51
|
use one momentum offset for full momentum range. Tanja notes that since that
|
|
52
|
setting uses a different set of matrix elements, that might have some impact.
|
|
53
|
|
|
54
|
DG asked for table of offsets for all variables, as well as kinematics.
|
|
55
|
|
|
56
|
Alicia: Downloaded and built PARTONS program (framework?). Model results to
|
|
57
|
come. Will proceed with analysis with present t-binning - will need to
|
|
58
|
revisit once kinematics offsets are determined.
|
|
59
|
|
|
60
|
|