Project

General

Profile

Kaon LT Meetings » mtg_23jun08.txt

Garth Huber, 06/13/2023 06:15 AM

 
1
kaonLT/pionLT meeting minutes. June 8, 2023
2

    
3
Richard:
4

    
5
Luminosity analysis: looked at higher rate coincidence running - (up to
6
1.25 kHz). Still looks good, but lever arm only about 200 Hz.
7

    
8
The LH2 tracks from the single arm lumi scans do not behave as well as the
9
carbon tracks did.  There appears to be different trends at different energies.
10
Will consult with Peter and Carlos.
11

    
12
HGC efficiency script: issues with slurm job memory persist.
13

    
14
Ali:
15

    
16
Revisiting the strange trend that Ali saw in the HMS momentum offset. DG
17
sees similar (though not identical) trend in inclusive data from 2022-23.
18

    
19
The region between 4-6 GeV looks especially interesting. Ali will look into
20
adding 2021-2022 data. Dave will check that HMS setting program did not change
21
between kaonLT and pionLT.  Ali will also look at Heep singles.
22

    
23
Starting to test LT separation code.
24

    
25
Alicia:
26

    
27
Got PARTONS working and has GK predictions for beam spin asymmetry.  There was
28
some discussion about how to make the curves look smoother - this is tricky
29
since the model is evaluated at different (x,Q2,t) to match data.
30

    
31
Regarding PARTONS/GK - the LT cross sections are in the code, but not an
32
"observable" in the output, so code needs some modification to make available.
33

    
34
Some issues with VGL prediction for beam spin asymmetry - way too small. Has
35
anyone used VGL for this observable that might have some insight?
36

    
37
Looking at systematic errors (Mx cut dependence, coin time cut dependence).
38
Still need beam polarization - Dave said he would produce those before next
39
meeting.
40

    
41
Nathan:
42

    
43
Nathan was elected as JLUO grad student rep. Congratulations Nathan!
44

    
45
Working on NGC calibrations - got the mutli-Gaussian method working, although
46
fits sometimes give results that aren't right, so need some attention.  Also
47
testing the default Poisson fit.  There is some systematic difference
48
between the 2 methods, but the Poisson fit seems to be more stable (fewer
49
parameters), so will likely use that method.
(245-245/430)