|
1
|
Nov 16/23 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 - Garth Huber, Ali Usman, Alicia Postuma, Muhammad Junaid,
|
|
13
|
Nathan Heinrich, Vijay Kumar, Nacer Hamdi
|
|
14
|
CUA - Richard Trotta, Tanja Horn, Casey Morean
|
|
15
|
JLab - Dave Gaskell
|
|
16
|
CSULA - Konrad Aniol
|
|
17
|
|
|
18
|
Richard
|
|
19
|
-------
|
|
20
|
Optimization of offsets for high beam energy datasets
|
|
21
|
- new study based off GH's older 5_recon offsets, adjusting dPe offset, keeping
|
|
22
|
dPp=-0.1%
|
|
23
|
- dPe has a greater effect on W
|
|
24
|
|
|
25
|
- then try GH's new offsets, determined with dPp constrained
|
|
26
|
- these work fairly well, but RT adjusts dPe to optimize W, EM overlap
|
|
27
|
- Displayed different variables after including offsets. It seems that some
|
|
28
|
variables get better with some extra variation.
|
|
29
|
|
|
30
|
- Garth: concerned about optimizing offsets for Heep, which may not work for
|
|
31
|
other data. Better to determine global offsets, for multiple beam energies,
|
|
32
|
so we have some confidence they can be applied to physics data.
|
|
33
|
- RT will try to get 3 sets of offsets:
|
|
34
|
a) 3.8, 4.9, 6.2 GeV
|
|
35
|
b) 8.2 GeV, where the SHMS - HMS spectrometer roles are reversed
|
|
36
|
- fortunately, the SHMS, HMS momentum offsets are similar
|
|
37
|
c) 10.6 GeV, where there may be HMS saturation
|
|
38
|
|
|
39
|
- Dave: are the optics fine for HMS=6.6 GeV/c setting @ 10.6 GeV?
|
|
40
|
- yes, using Jacob's Matrix Elements, sieve spots look okay
|
|
41
|
|
|
42
|
- RT is actually using smaller offsets than GH provided for energies other
|
|
43
|
than 10.6
|
|
44
|
|
|
45
|
Ali
|
|
46
|
---
|
|
47
|
Coin Time vs. Beta leakage in 10.6 GeV data
|
|
48
|
- completed the cut-dependence study requested by Tanja/Dave
|
|
49
|
- ~96% efficiency @ 10.6 GeV, >99% for 6.2, 8.2 GeV
|
|
50
|
|
|
51
|
- Mark sent a write-up on Improved Hodoscope timing and Hit reconstruction
|
|
52
|
algorithm
|
|
53
|
- initial test of ptof_tolerance from 100ns to 2.0ns had no effect
|
|
54
|
- the problem was traced to AU adjusting the wrong cut file
|
|
55
|
- a set of dedicated cut files were used for certain sets of run #
|
|
56
|
- now the smaller tolerance works, the cointime vs beta tails gone, no events
|
|
57
|
lost
|
|
58
|
|
|
59
|
- the problem seems coming from too loose time window on the hodoscope, our
|
|
60
|
earlier hypothesis that it was related to inverted signal cable was a red
|
|
61
|
herring
|
|
62
|
|
|
63
|
- Nacer: what is the meaning of this tolerance?
|
|
64
|
RG/Casey: times from all hodoscope hits are propagated to the focal plane,
|
|
65
|
ptof_tolerance is the time window to accept different hits from the
|
|
66
|
hodoscopes when reconstructing an event
|
|
67
|
- 100 ns clearly far too loose, 2ns (a beam bunch spacing) should be good
|
|
68
|
since TOF variations to the hodoscope planes is taken into account in the
|
|
69
|
focal plane projection
|
|
70
|
|
|
71
|
- fortunately, the ptof_tolerance was already set correctly for the 6.2, 8.2
|
|
72
|
data, it's a mystery that only the 10.6 GeV data had such a wide window
|
|
73
|
- Garth: we've had repeated issues with things set wrongly in the 10.6 GeV
|
|
74
|
replay. Really hope we have caught them all now.
|
|
75
|
|
|
76
|
- Ali will update the cut files and make a pull request. A full replay will
|
|
77
|
be submitted after RT has finalized the offsets.
|
|
78
|
|
|
79
|
Vijay
|
|
80
|
---
|
|
81
|
OOP offsets
|
|
82
|
- applied 0.99 mrad HMS offset, obtained from GH's fit to just 2.7,3.6,4.6 GeV
|
|
83
|
data
|
|
84
|
- PMY variable is improved for all 3 beam energies
|
|
85
|
|
|
86
|
- Dave: investigated change in beam angle in different beam periods. The
|
|
87
|
changes were of order ~0.1 mrad, not 1 mrad, so not enough to explain why we
|
|
88
|
need different OOP offsets for different beam periods
|
|
89
|
|
|
90
|
Alicia
|
|
91
|
------
|
|
92
|
No report, was looking into CoinTime issue reported by Ali, and corresponded
|
|
93
|
w/M.Jones
|
|
94
|
- will do a 10.6 GeV pion replay (including helicity info) after RT has
|
|
95
|
finalized offsets
|
|
96
|
|
|
97
|
Nacer
|
|
98
|
-----
|
|
99
|
Checking 3.8 GeV hodoscope calibrations after finding shifted beta distribution
|
|
100
|
|
|
101
|
Nathan
|
|
102
|
------
|
|
103
|
CoinTime reference times
|
|
104
|
- Checked multiple T.coin.pTRIG.ROC variables, and looked at different
|
|
105
|
multiplicity cuts
|
|
106
|
- Plot of T.coin.pTRIG1_ROC1_tdcTimeRaw
|
|
107
|
Blue: No cuts, Red: MULTIPLICITY=1
|
|
108
|
- MarkJ indicated need to separate SINGLES and COIN events, to avoid multiple
|
|
109
|
peaks and allow cut windows to be tightened
|
|
110
|
- will need separate cuts for SINGLES and COIN, different PTRIG
|
|
111
|
- For most variables the timing window cuts are clear
|
|
112
|
|
|
113
|
- T.coin.pT2_tdcTimeRaw has all events at zero, needs further investigation
|
|
114
|
|
|
115
|
Junaid
|
|
116
|
------
|
|
117
|
- Finished hodoscope calibration, changes pushed today
|
|
118
|
- will post documentation slides on RedMine
|
|
119
|
- Moved to drift chambers calibration. Started with with 2021 data for both HMS
|
|
120
|
and SHMS
|
|
121
|
- Drift distances for different drift chamber planes look better before
|
|
122
|
re-calibration, so it seems the calibration is okay
|
|
123
|
- submitted 40 more jobs for more thorough check
|
|
124
|
|
|
125
|
Next Meeting
|
|
126
|
------------
|
|
127
|
- No meeting next week due to US Thanksgiving
|
|
128
|
- Thur Nov 30 @ 15:00 Eastern/14:00 Regina
|
|
129
|
- PionLT will go first
|