|
1
|
Nov 2/23 PionLT/KaonLT Analysis Meeting Notes
|
|
2
|
---------------------------------------------
|
|
3
|
(Notes by GH & AH)
|
|
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 - Nathan Heinrich, Ali Usman, Garth Huber, Vijay Kumar, Nacer Hamdi,
|
|
13
|
Alicia Postuma, Muhammad Junaid
|
|
14
|
York - Stephen Kay
|
|
15
|
CUA - Richard Trotta, Tanja Horn
|
|
16
|
FIU - Pete Markowitz
|
|
17
|
|
|
18
|
Stephen
|
|
19
|
-------
|
|
20
|
Update on the NPS experiment data taking
|
|
21
|
- Shared some of the challenges the Hall C team had during the current data
|
|
22
|
collection
|
|
23
|
- Mentioned Problems with the DAQ system
|
|
24
|
- unlike PionLT, lots of DAQ reconfigurations in a cyclic order
|
|
25
|
- Target Operator will be very busy because of the DAQ issues
|
|
26
|
- They were also facing spectrometer magnet issues, where response time delay
|
|
27
|
is observed
|
|
28
|
- Junaid has not yet received his US visa. If it is not issued by Nov 20, he
|
|
29
|
will need to cancel his shifts, so others have time to fill them
|
|
30
|
|
|
31
|
Richard
|
|
32
|
-------
|
|
33
|
Checking effect of Heep offsets received from Garth
|
|
34
|
- GH provided offsets for different energy sets
|
|
35
|
- Richard tried using global offsets for all 5 KaonLT beam energies
|
|
36
|
|
|
37
|
- The offsets work for low energy, but need to be different at high energy
|
|
38
|
- observe a progressive shift in EM distribution with beam energy, other
|
|
39
|
variables are more stable
|
|
40
|
- Richard tried ad-hoc adjusting SHMS momentum offset to fix this
|
|
41
|
- for dpp -1.0000: The W looks good, but the E_miss is worse for high
|
|
42
|
energies
|
|
43
|
- for dpp -8.0000: the inverse happens for E_miss
|
|
44
|
- Need to investigate the E_miss sensitivity to the offsets
|
|
45
|
|
|
46
|
- Garth suggests instead to try the offsets for just the 3 highest beam
|
|
47
|
energies
|
|
48
|
- Tanja: it seems that it will not be possible to find a set of offsets
|
|
49
|
that work for all data, will need at least 2 sets
|
|
50
|
- Garth thinks 3 sets of offsets are needed:
|
|
51
|
- Summer 2019 low beam energy offsets (Vijay's data)
|
|
52
|
- 3 highest KaonLT beam energies (Richard and Ali's data)
|
|
53
|
- 2 lowest KaonLT beam energies (Nacer's data)
|
|
54
|
|
|
55
|
- had a sign issue last week compared to Vijay, this is corrected now
|
|
56
|
|
|
57
|
- Out of Plane offsets
|
|
58
|
- tried applying Garth's PMY offset, did not shift PMY very much
|
|
59
|
- RT just realized had wrong sign on SHMS offset
|
|
60
|
- Garth: Check the instruction for the correct implementation of the computed
|
|
61
|
offsets
|
|
62
|
|
|
63
|
- Vijay: maybe worth comparing the OOP offset between data, rather then MC
|
|
64
|
vs. data
|
|
65
|
- Garth will make a plot with PMY data only (not data-SIMC), maybe it results
|
|
66
|
in a slightly larger OOP offset
|
|
67
|
|
|
68
|
Vijay
|
|
69
|
-----
|
|
70
|
No update, just completed Chapter 2 of thesis
|
|
71
|
- Will check the effect of the computed OOP offsets for his data as well
|
|
72
|
- Lumi analysis will be next after OOP offset
|
|
73
|
|
|
74
|
Ali
|
|
75
|
---
|
|
76
|
Beta cut efficiency studies
|
|
77
|
- Looking at Heep coin data (cleaner data), to study Beta cut efficiency, due
|
|
78
|
to Coin time issues for 10.6 GeV data.
|
|
79
|
- still looking at cut-dependence
|
|
80
|
- with original cuts, got ~95% for COIN events at 10.6 GeV, but ~98% for 6.2,
|
|
81
|
8.2 GeV data
|
|
82
|
- want to understand how the cut-dependence particularly affects the low
|
|
83
|
epsilon data
|
|
84
|
|
|
85
|
- Showed CoinTime vs Beta SHMS: See a tail at high Beta without PID cut
|
|
86
|
- 6.2 GeV: no boomerang, but long tail up to beta=1.8 (Heep data)
|
|
87
|
- maybe try only a beta lower limit cut, no upper limit cut
|
|
88
|
|
|
89
|
- Tanja: agrees can put PID cuts to study beta-efficiency
|
|
90
|
- need a CLEAN SAMPLE, then while identifying these events, adjust the cut
|
|
91
|
- try different PID cuts to clean the sample to a level were they become
|
|
92
|
not sensitive to the cuts
|
|
93
|
|
|
94
|
Alicia
|
|
95
|
------
|
|
96
|
Draft slides on 10.6 GeV CT issue for the Quarterly Analysis meeting
|
|
97
|
- Discussion on the observed CoinTime issues at 10.6 GeV.
|
|
98
|
- Garth still has to put together his slides on Offset studies
|
|
99
|
|
|
100
|
Nathan
|
|
101
|
------
|
|
102
|
Checking if Coin time reference time cuts make sense, as suggested in his
|
|
103
|
committee meeting
|
|
104
|
- Tcoin.pTRIG1_ROC1_tdcTime vs CTime.ePiCoinTime_ROC1 and same vs ROC2
|
|
105
|
- TDC time TRIG1 and TRIG4 were used to compute reference time
|
|
106
|
- get various multiple-pea histos and diagonal correlations, very difficult
|
|
107
|
to understand
|
|
108
|
- will make a quick script to look at a wide range of Run#
|
|
109
|
- Tried different cuts and replayed to see the effects
|
|
110
|
- Goal is to pick a peak in RawTDC distribution and place appropriate cut
|
|
111
|
values in cutfile
|
|
112
|
- checking if cuts are correct on: pTRIG1,4_ROC1,2
|
|
113
|
- do not yet know what the cut on hT2 is for
|
|
114
|
|
|
115
|
Junaid
|
|
116
|
------
|
|
117
|
Continuation of Hodoscope calibration
|
|
118
|
- the gap noticed on the 2D plots in Beta vs Delta is removed after turning off
|
|
119
|
the HGC cut
|
|
120
|
- Moving to drift chamber calibration
|
|
121
|
|
|
122
|
Nacer
|
|
123
|
-----
|
|
124
|
Working on Kaon LT data @ 3.8 GeV
|
|
125
|
- After noticing some quantities offsets (Beta SHMS) from their expected
|
|
126
|
values, a new replay was submitted
|
|
127
|
- maybe the last replay was not done with the final calibrations?
|
|
128
|
|
|
129
|
Next Meeting
|
|
130
|
------------
|
|
131
|
- Thur Nov 9 @ 15:00 Eastern/14:00 Regina
|
|
132
|
- PionLT will go first
|
|
133
|
|
|
134
|
- Please send and post the notes from last week's meeting
|