1
|
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
|
2
|
NOTES FROM ALI_MINI MEETING (2023-06-25)
|
3
|
|
4
|
Richard L. Trotta III
|
5
|
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
|
6
|
|
7
|
|
8
|
|
9
|
|
10
|
|
11
|
◊ Look into absolute error on target thickness
|
12
|
|
13
|
|
14
|
◊ HGCer efficiency
|
15
|
|
16
|
◊ Peter said I didn't need to use HGCer for kaon cut
|
17
|
|
18
|
|
19
|
◊ SIMC HGCer cut, hgcer_eff*weight as the correction
|
20
|
|
21
|
|
22
|
◊ SIMC aerogel tray cut
|
23
|
|
24
|
|
25
|
◊ HGCer for two regions, in each region plot avg photo-electrons as a function of the momentum
|
26
|
|
27
|
◊ Poisson distrobution was used to get the actual efficiency for given number of photo-electrons
|
28
|
|
29
|
|
30
|
◊ For each region of the HGCer, Avg number of photo-electrons for all runs of a momentum setting. Then plot this avg vs momentum in each region.
|
31
|
|
32
|
◊ Apply hole cut
|
33
|
|
34
|
|
35
|
◊ Plot NPE of each region
|
36
|
|
37
|
|
38
|
◊ Root can provide the avg NPE.
|
39
|
|
40
|
|
41
|
◊ Repeat for each run of a momentum setting and get the total avg for that momentum setting
|
42
|
|
43
|
|
44
|
◊ Modify HGCer eff script to get NPE of each region per run. Make a CSV file with momentum, avg NPE, run number. Use CSV to get avg NPE per momentum and fit with a Poisson to get the efficiency (by integrating under the curve??).
|
45
|
|
46
|
|
47
|
◊ Luminosity
|
48
|
|
49
|
◊ BCM correction factor: if current < 60 then bcmcorr = 1.0+0.045 * (log(60.) - log(current)) /(log(60.) - log(2.))
|
50
|
|
51
|
|
52
|
◊ BCM correction factor: if current > 60 then bcmcorr = 1.00+0.010 * (current - 60.) / 25.
|
53
|
|
54
|
|
55
|
◊ Apply to current as current = current * bcmcorr
|
56
|
|
57
|
|
58
|
◊ Plot EL_CLEAN with no cuts, should be very stable
|
59
|
|
60
|
|
61
|
◊ Peter had scalers (EL_CLEAN) within 0.1-0.2%
|
62
|
|
63
|
|
64
|
◊ Plot production with HMS EL_CLEAN vs current for settings with a variety of currents. Study each individually (even dummy can be used) and the boiling should be obvious.
|
65
|
|
66
|
|
67
|
◊ Kaon PID
|
68
|
|
69
|
◊ For pi/proton peaks in MM_k, simulate in SIMC and then subtract
|
70
|
|
71
|
|
72
|
◊ Aerogel
|
73
|
|
74
|
◊ make sure geometric cuts match in data and SIMC and don't include any low efficiency regions
|
75
|
|
76
|
|
77
|
◊ use 3 NPE cut rather than 1.5 to have less protons
|
78
|
|
79
|
|
80
|
◊ HGCer
|
81
|
|
82
|
◊ In data, require <1 NPE
|
83
|
|
84
|
|
85
|
◊ In SIMC, remove events that have pion ID (i.e. kaon has decayed) at the aerogel position AND are outside the hgcer hole
|
86
|
|
87
|
|
88
|
◊ The simc ntuple variables that give the particle mass squared and position in spectrometer can be used to remove these kaon decay events
|
89
|
|
90
|
|
91
|
◊ This is an important correction, especially at low momentum. Quite a lot of kaons decay in the hut, but the decay pion makes a track and passes all the way to the aerogel and calorimeter.
|
92
|
|
93
|
|
94
|
◊ To be even more accurate, the "weight" can be multiplied by (1-pi_eff) IF the particle is a pion and L<21 meters or so (where 21 is the aerogel L).
|
95
|
|
96
|
|
97
|
◊ To simulate the shape vs MM of pions in SIMC, again multiply the weights by (1-pi_eff)
|
98
|
|
99
|
|
100
|
◊ In simc, you should not only run ep->(e, n, pi+), but also the channel ep->(e, pi, Delta0). The threshold for this reaction is 1.08 GeV, and so it falls under the 1115 Lambda peak. The shape is a curve that rises very quickly above 1.08 GeV, so exclusive pions would underestimate the pion background.
|