|
1
|
|
|
2
|
Nov 9/23 PionLT/KaonLT Analysis Meeting Notes
|
|
3
|
---------------------------------------------
|
|
4
|
(Notes by GH & AH)
|
|
5
|
|
|
6
|
Today: PionLT will be discussed first
|
|
7
|
|
|
8
|
Please remember to post your slides at:
|
|
9
|
https://redmine.jlab.org/projects/kltexp/wiki/Kaon_LT_Meetings
|
|
10
|
|
|
11
|
Present
|
|
12
|
-------
|
|
13
|
Regina - Garth Huber, Muhammad Junaid, Nacer Hamdi, Nathan Heinrich, Vijay
|
|
14
|
Kumar, Alicia Postuma
|
|
15
|
FIU - Pete Markowitz
|
|
16
|
JLab - Dave Gaskell
|
|
17
|
CUA - Richard Trotta, Tanja Horn
|
|
18
|
|
|
19
|
Nathan
|
|
20
|
------
|
|
21
|
Making scripts to check RefTime cuts for CoinTimes, will need to do some debugging
|
|
22
|
- probably will need to check with Mark Jones on what variables to use
|
|
23
|
|
|
24
|
Junaid
|
|
25
|
------
|
|
26
|
Hodoscope calibrations
|
|
27
|
- last set of run numbers should be completed this afternoon
|
|
28
|
- 2021 run period: 3 parameter sets for SHMS, HMS only 1
|
|
29
|
- Summer 2022: only 1 set needed for each of SHMS, HMS
|
|
30
|
- will update param files and push to GitHub
|
|
31
|
- then will move to rechecking DC calibs
|
|
32
|
|
|
33
|
Richard
|
|
34
|
-------
|
|
35
|
Applying Heep in-plane offsets
|
|
36
|
- previously tried using Garth's 5-beam offsets with modified dPp
|
|
37
|
- briefly tried 3-beam offsets, prefers the 3-beam offsets, but no results
|
|
38
|
shown
|
|
39
|
- EM has a systematic trend, looks good for 6.2 with offsets, worst for 10.6 GeV
|
|
40
|
- adjust SHMS dPp offset in ad-hoc way to improve EM, while heeping HMS dPe=0
|
|
41
|
- shows plots of W & EM with changing dPp. W insensitive
|
|
42
|
- noticed that for momentum offset, in particular dPp-0.7%, makes the
|
|
43
|
distributions, including Emiss, have a better match between MC vs. data
|
|
44
|
- also briefly showed some PM distributions: PMX doesn't change much, PMZ
|
|
45
|
behaves similarly to EM
|
|
46
|
- applies offsets w/opposite sign, Vijay did as well
|
|
47
|
- DG: HMS and SHMS momentum offsets have similar action. Did you try changing
|
|
48
|
HMS dPe instead of SHMS dPp?
|
|
49
|
- GH: the SHMS momenta are not large for these Heep runs, P<5 GeV/c, so
|
|
50
|
argument for saturation is not there
|
|
51
|
- would feel more comfortable with a common (moderate) SHMS offset, and try
|
|
52
|
to play around more with dE beam ofset
|
|
53
|
- DG: if you change dPe, then need to adjust beam dE to keep W fixed
|
|
54
|
- RT: we could try to keep SHMS at 0.1% and vary HMS momentum offset
|
|
55
|
|
|
56
|
Heep OOP offsets
|
|
57
|
- shows plot w/PMY offsets
|
|
58
|
- out of plane offsets dpphi and dhphi unfortunetly do not have much effect
|
|
59
|
|
|
60
|
Vijay
|
|
61
|
-----
|
|
62
|
Applied Heep OOP offset
|
|
63
|
- supposed to be same value that RT tried, but he sees a larger effect
|
|
64
|
- in fact, PMY is over-corrected, which indicates applied offset is too large,
|
|
65
|
not too small
|
|
66
|
- RT and VK to discuss offline, maybe RT has a units issue?
|
|
67
|
|
|
68
|
Alicia
|
|
69
|
------
|
|
70
|
Summary of 10.6 GeV CoinTime corrections for Ali
|
|
71
|
- feedback from quarterly meeting using the new variables to help with the
|
|
72
|
CoinTime correction
|
|
73
|
- Mark Jones sent a short write-up on what variables to look at
|
|
74
|
- the first results using it are negative, but need to do more checks on
|
|
75
|
whether implementing it correctly
|
|
76
|
|
|
77
|
Nacer
|
|
78
|
-----
|
|
79
|
3.8 GeV KaonLT beta distribution issue
|
|
80
|
- did a new replay on 3.8 GeV data, but Beta is still shifted to higher values
|
|
81
|
- P.gtr.beta peaked at 1.1 and very broad
|
|
82
|
- maybe something not right in replay scripts, pointing to wrong calibrations?
|
|
83
|
- NH will sit down with AH to look things over
|
|
84
|
- VK says he thought the 3.8 GeV beta distribution should be properly peaked
|
|
85
|
|
|
86
|
- Also tried an accidentals subtraction, seems to be over subtracting, so need
|
|
87
|
to recheck
|
|
88
|
|
|
89
|
Garth
|
|
90
|
-----
|
|
91
|
Heep OOP offsets
|
|
92
|
- one of the feedbacks from Quarterly Analysis meeting was to separate
|
|
93
|
out-off-plane offsets to three fits to get smaller offsets that match different
|
|
94
|
beam energy sets
|
|
95
|
- showed result of revised fit, need to keep the SHMS offset fixed near zero
|
|
96
|
and only refit HMS offset
|
|
97
|
- for Vijay's data the offset would be slightly less than half of global
|
|
98
|
value, the other beam energies would have values more similar to global fit
|
|
99
|
|
|
100
|
- DG: Still puzzling how is the offsets vary with beam energy, in other words
|
|
101
|
the HMS offsets weirdly vary with the spectrometers postion
|
|
102
|
- GH: agree this doesn't sound physical, but the uncertainties in the offsets
|
|
103
|
appear to be large, so maybe the change is less significant than it seems
|
|
104
|
- PeteM: maybe it's the angle of the beam into the hall that is varying?
|
|
105
|
- DG: these are 3 different beam periods, and the steering into the hall
|
|
106
|
would be different each time, maybe PM is on to something
|
|
107
|
- RT looked earlier at the beam position (so did GH), but not the angle
|
|
108
|
- DG needs a ROOT file w/BPM position info
|
|
109
|
- RT: Below is the location of our replays as well as the run lists for the
|
|
110
|
kaonLT data periods
|
|
111
|
/lustre19/expphy/cache/hallc/kaonlt/Dec_2022/Analysis/KaonLT
|
|
112
|
- Run numbers:
|
|
113
|
Fall 2018: https://redmine.jlab.org/attachments/548/kaonlt_runlist.csv
|
|
114
|
Spring 2019:
|
|
115
|
https://redmine.jlab.org/attachments/768/kaonlt_runlist_8p2-6p2.csv
|
|
116
|
|
|
117
|
|
|
118
|
Next Meeting
|
|
119
|
------------
|
|
120
|
- Thur Nov 16 @ 15:00 Eastern/14:00 Regina
|
|
121
|
- KaonLT will go first
|