1
|
Mar 14/24 PionLT/KaonLT Analysis Meeting Notes
|
2
|
----------------------------------------------
|
3
|
(Notes by GH)
|
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, Nacer Hamdi, Ali Usman, Muhammad Junaid, Nathan Heinrich,
|
13
|
Vijay Kumar, Alicia Postuma
|
14
|
CUA - Richard Trotta
|
15
|
York - Stephen Kay
|
16
|
CSULA - Konrad Aniol
|
17
|
JLab - Dave Gaskell
|
18
|
|
19
|
Ali
|
20
|
---
|
21
|
MM shape study for DeltaPi BSA
|
22
|
- reran MC's with new resolution parameter
|
23
|
- starting on settings with lower P_HMS, where delta correction is not needed
|
24
|
- shows Q2=3.0, W=3.14, high stats setting, positive helicity
|
25
|
- initial fit of MCs to data
|
26
|
- new 10 MeV/bin instead of previous 4 MeV/bin (lower statistical errors/bin)
|
27
|
- with new MM binning, it is now more clear that strength of DeltaPi peak is
|
28
|
underestimated for some phi-bins
|
29
|
- since SIDIS and rho bkds are so similar, using a fixed ratio of 90%
|
30
|
SIDIS/10% rho for now
|
31
|
- cyan=sum of bkds, pi+n tail+SIDIS+rho
|
32
|
- optimistic that 2 t-bins can eventually be used for this setting (data
|
33
|
shown is over full t-range)
|
34
|
- GH: since they are so similar, why don't you try fitting just one of rho or
|
35
|
SIDIS to see which one is better, and just use that one?
|
36
|
- DG: this would be an unphysical choice, but it probably makes no difference
|
37
|
to your analysis
|
38
|
- Nacer: why are you fitting each phi bin separately?
|
39
|
- we have confidence that SIMC can properly describe the shapes for the
|
40
|
different processes, but not their amplitudes, so we need to fit each phi
|
41
|
bin separately
|
42
|
|
43
|
Alicia
|
44
|
------
|
45
|
MM cut study after resolution correction implemented in SIMC
|
46
|
- Dave suggested calculating Data/SIMC ratio for different MM cut values
|
47
|
- UofR group meeting also suggested to compare w/ w/o HGC cut
|
48
|
- HGC gets rid of KLambda leakthrough but not the shape of the region
|
49
|
between pi+n and KLambda
|
50
|
- ratios do not in general have a plateau vs MM cut
|
51
|
- Q2=3, W=3.14 data shown
|
52
|
- t-bins 1,2 show a decrease in ratio vs MM
|
53
|
- t-bin 3 shows a plateau
|
54
|
- t-bins 4-6 show an increase vs MM
|
55
|
- behavior is similar for Q2=4.5, 5.5
|
56
|
- since the ratio is not flat, will instead try placing MM cut in region where
|
57
|
expt yield is flat
|
58
|
- Q2=5.5, flat region is MM=0.99-1.03, so will try MM cuts 1.01+/-0.02
|
59
|
- Q2=4.4, Q2=3.0 W=3.14, flat region looks similar, so same MM cut
|
60
|
- GH: can't think of anything better to try, given the situation
|
61
|
|
62
|
- Dave: have you looked at BSA vs MM cut?
|
63
|
- a preliminary study was done last year, the final study will be done with
|
64
|
these MM cuts
|
65
|
|
66
|
- Dave: if SIMC handles the radiative corrections properly, any cut below 2pi
|
67
|
threshold should give the same answer
|
68
|
- GH: not sure about this, the pion scattering in the collimator also
|
69
|
populates this region, in Fpi-1,2 we had to use a cut well below 2pi
|
70
|
threshold to avoid being too sensitive to this region
|
71
|
|
72
|
- Dave: there is no SHMS collimator routine in SIMC
|
73
|
- GH: wasn't aware of no routine was included at all.
|
74
|
*TASK for GH:* find the HMS collimator code used in Fpi-2 analysis, and get
|
75
|
instructions on how to modify it for SHMS collimator geometry
|
76
|
|
77
|
- Nacer: can an RF cut be applied to help clean up this MM region?
|
78
|
- no, only a small subset of 10.6 GeV data has the RF information available,
|
79
|
unfortunately
|
80
|
|
81
|
HMS Delta-correction
|
82
|
- P_HMS=6.59, Q2=3, W=2.32 data
|
83
|
- hcana uncorrected MMpi vs hsxpfp shows line with tilt on top half
|
84
|
- using reconstructed MMpi script to determine correction
|
85
|
- applying if hsxpfp>0: hsdelta+=3.0*hsxpfp
|
86
|
- resulting MM distribution is narrowed
|
87
|
- P_HMS=5.292, Q2=2.1, W=2.95 data
|
88
|
- hcana uncorrected MMpi vs hsxpfp shows line with tilt on bottom half
|
89
|
- correction: if hsxpfp<0: hsdelta-=4.0*hsxpfp
|
90
|
|
91
|
- having difficulty implementing this correction in hcana
|
92
|
- recompiling hcana on iFarm gives complaint about missing PODD variables
|
93
|
- Stephen: please *send* the PODD error and he will look at his notes to see
|
94
|
if he can fix
|
95
|
- Nathan: thinks it might be better to implement correction in the kinematics
|
96
|
file
|
97
|
|
98
|
CKY Regge model
|
99
|
- received LT' predictions from BG Yu for the BSA paper
|
100
|
|
101
|
Richard
|
102
|
-------
|
103
|
Subtracting pion leakthrough
|
104
|
- last week's results had HGC hole cut inverted, taking only events in the hole
|
105
|
- now the pi+ dist comes all the way across the MM acceptance
|
106
|
- Q2=2.1 setting, high epsilon
|
107
|
- pi+ subtraction does not clean up region left of KLambda peak
|
108
|
- planning to re-optimize PID cuts after graduation
|
109
|
|
110
|
Unsep and Separated Q2=3.0, W=2.32 xsect
|
111
|
- shows ratios vs phi,t at high, low epsilon
|
112
|
- looking at what's responsible for Data/SIMC ratios being much larger at
|
113
|
high eps than low eps
|
114
|
- trying various initial values of model parameters
|
115
|
sigL=g(W)*(p1+p2*logQ2)exp(p3+p4*logQ2)*(-t+0.2)
|
116
|
-- changed last part to just -t to get better t-dependence
|
117
|
sigT=g(W)*p5/(1+p6*Q2)
|
118
|
- Dave: maybe remove the Q2-dependence and only have a simple t-dependence
|
119
|
|
120
|
- Dave: the *real issue*, however, is that if you have sigL<0 from the
|
121
|
beginning, there's a problem with the data itself, not the iteration
|
122
|
- GH: exactly what MM region is integrated for these yields?
|
123
|
- MM cut is applied after pi-subtraction
|
124
|
- GH: if we can't clean up the region left of KLambda with cuts or pion
|
125
|
subtraction, then we will have to consider fitting a polynomial and
|
126
|
subtracting it
|
127
|
- Dave: yes, we will need to sort this out
|
128
|
|
129
|
- Richard shows MM plots for same setting at high and low epsilon
|
130
|
- RF cut can be used only at low epsilon, region left of KLambda is
|
131
|
noticeably cleaner than high epsilon
|
132
|
- GH notices that pion subtraction peak is much narrower than the pi+n MM
|
133
|
leakthrough peak
|
134
|
- Ali's pion sample was analyzed as if pions, not K, hence the peak is narrow
|
135
|
- normalizing to the height of the pi+n peak will result in too little pion
|
136
|
leakthrough being subtracted, as the integrals won't match
|
137
|
- *Ali* will give Richard his cuts and RT will make a branch of his analysis
|
138
|
for the pion subtraction
|
139
|
|
140
|
Vijay
|
141
|
-----
|
142
|
PionLT low Q2 lt-analysis
|
143
|
- found bug in script, error bars vs phi now more reasonable
|
144
|
- shows results after 1 iteration for Q2=0.38, all 3 epsilons
|
145
|
- some discussion about phi-dependence of lowest t-bin
|
146
|
- the low epsilon setting seems to have a different phi-dependence than mid
|
147
|
and high eps, which is weird
|
148
|
- Dave: this could indicate a residual offset issue, lowest t-bin is always
|
149
|
more sensitive to the offsets
|
150
|
- Vijay will investigate further
|
151
|
- t-bins 2-7 have more consistent phi-dependence at low, mid, high epsilon
|
152
|
- 8th t-bin has poor statistics, might have to be removed from analysis
|
153
|
|
154
|
- shows separated cross sections after 1st iteration, and model fits for
|
155
|
iteration #2
|
156
|
- t-bins 1,8 look like outliers for sigT,L after iteration #1
|
157
|
- if only t-bins 2-7 included in fit, things are more consistent
|
158
|
- will have to see what this looks like after more study
|
159
|
|
160
|
Nacer
|
161
|
-----
|
162
|
KaonLT low Q2 event selection
|
163
|
- won't show any plots, since the meeting is getting long
|
164
|
- tweaking some cuts, changing the RF windows
|
165
|
- RF cut is very effective, needs fine tuning
|
166
|
- GH: since the RF cut is so effective, you can probably get by with a
|
167
|
combination of slightly looser PID cuts, to avoid cut-dependence to the
|
168
|
result
|
169
|
|
170
|
Nathan
|
171
|
------
|
172
|
Setting up PionLT Luminosity analysis
|
173
|
- in contact with Dave Mack regarding BCM calibrations
|
174
|
- DM did our first calibs from 2021 run, NH will follow up with him on run#'s
|
175
|
- Dave: if you can generate ROOT trees for him to analyze, it would be even
|
176
|
better
|
177
|
|
178
|
Weird hcana issue
|
179
|
- hcana suddenly did not know what replay variables were
|
180
|
- spent a day debugging
|
181
|
- restored things, but no idea what happened, as could not find any
|
182
|
difference from how things were set up before
|
183
|
|
184
|
Going through Richard's python scripts and finding what's missing
|
185
|
- will plan on meeting RT in early April, after his defense
|
186
|
|
187
|
Junaid
|
188
|
------
|
189
|
Setting up PionLT Heep study
|
190
|
- had some issues with lt-sep package
|
191
|
- merged cut files for 2021,22
|
192
|
- added ngcer
|
193
|
- updated RF time offsets
|
194
|
|
195
|
PID cuts
|
196
|
- HMS cal-etot-track-norm>0.7
|
197
|
- HMS cer NPE>1.5
|
198
|
- CoinTime, extremely clean, practically no randoms
|
199
|
- should be able to just place a cut around prompt peak, no random
|
200
|
subtraction
|
201
|
|
202
|
Next Meeting
|
203
|
------------
|
204
|
- Thur Mar 21 @ 15:00 Eastern/13:00 Regina
|
205
|
- PionLT will go first
|
206
|
|
207
|
|
208
|
|