| 
      1
     | 
    
                       Apr 18/24 PionLT/KaonLT Analysis Meeting Notes
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      2
     | 
    
                       ----------------------------------------------
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      3
     | 
    
                                      (Notes by GH)
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      4
     | 
    
      
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      5
     | 
    
                           Today: PionLT 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, Nathan Heinrich, Ali Usman, Vijay Kumar, Nacer Hamdi,
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      13
     | 
    
         Alicia Postuma
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      14
     | 
    
      CUA - Tanja Horn, Casey Morean
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      15
     | 
    
      UVa - Richard Trotta
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      16
     | 
    
      York - Stephen Kay
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      17
     | 
    
      CSULA - Konrad Aniol
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      18
     | 
    
      
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      19
     | 
    
      Nathan
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      20
     | 
    
      ------
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      21
     | 
    
      PionLT BCM calibrations
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      22
     | 
    
      - met with Dave Mack on Monday to learn how to do the calibrations
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      23
     | 
    
      - things going very well, made some improvements to Dave's scripts
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      24
     | 
    
      - waiting for feedback from Dave Mack on results NH analysis
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      25
     | 
    
      
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      26
     | 
    
      The steps:
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      27
     | 
    
      - do a scaler replay of BCM calib runs
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      28
     | 
    
      - pick beam on/off times
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      29
     | 
    
      - do a fit of BCM frequency vs Unser current
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      30
     | 
    
      - look at fit residuals, and exclude outliers
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      31
     | 
    
      
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      32
     | 
    
      Initial results:
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      33
     | 
    
      - it looks likely that BCM slopes and intercepts can be combined for periods
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      34
     | 
    
        where the physical configuration (PreAmp setup, tune) did not change
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      35
     | 
    
      - BCM2 intercept and slope looks pretty stable
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      36
     | 
    
      - DaveM thinks BCM4A is most reliable, as it generally has less non-linearity
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      37
     | 
    
        at high current
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      38
     | 
    
        - KaonLT used BCM4A and BCM1
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      39
     | 
    
      - BCM4B is optimized for low current, saturates above 40uA, so calib will be
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      40
     | 
    
        done only for lower current portion of scans
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      41
     | 
    
      - Nathan will make a write-up on changes to code and instructions
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      42
     | 
    
      
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      43
     | 
    
      Richard
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      44
     | 
    
      -------
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      45
     | 
    
      mc_recon script changes
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      46
     | 
    
      - as shown last week, there was an offset to some kinematic distributions
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      47
     | 
    
        because the recon script was using proton mass (left over from Heep) rather
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      48
     | 
    
        than K+ mass
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      49
     | 
    
        - after the fix, MM VS yptar correlations look similar for data + MC
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      50
     | 
    
        - some odd looking correlation between MM and xptar shown(!)
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      51
     | 
    
      
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      52
     | 
    
      pi+ leakthrough subtraction
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      53
     | 
    
      - now using an HGC cut, K+Lambda peak in pi+ sample is eliminated
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      54
     | 
    
      - investigated variations to pi+ spectrum when varying HGC cut
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      55
     | 
    
        - no significant changes seen for NPE>1.5 to 3.0
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      56
     | 
    
        - also looked at variations in Aerogel cut
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      57
     | 
    
      
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      58
     | 
    
      initial iteration results (Q2=3.0, W=3.14 only)
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      59
     | 
    
      - sigL seems to have a fairly small Q2-dependence within the diamond
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      60
     | 
    
      - t-dependence still not right yet
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      61
     | 
    
        - using exp(-t+0.2), will need to adjust the +0.2 offset in the exponent
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      62
     | 
    
      
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      63
     | 
    
      - GH: the MMk spectrum after pi+ leakthrough subtraction looks nicely clean
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      64
     | 
    
        now, suggest that you try fitting the SIMC K+Lambda and K+Sigma peaks to the
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      65
     | 
    
        pi+ subtracted MMk data
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      66
     | 
    
        - the K+Sigma peak sits on top of K+Lambda radiative tail, it would be good
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      67
     | 
    
          to see what the comparison looks like
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      68
     | 
    
      
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      69
     | 
    
      Alicia
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      70
     | 
    
      ------
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      71
     | 
    
      - making plots for the BSA paper
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      72
     | 
    
        - CoinTime, MM data vs SIMC w/cuts shown
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      73
     | 
    
        - sample asymmetries vs phi for Q2=3.0, W=3.14 (2nd highest stats setting)
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      74
     | 
    
      
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      75
     | 
    
      BSA xB dependence
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      76
     | 
    
      - last week we saw there is nearly no Q2-dep to LT', so it was suggested to
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      77
     | 
    
        explore the xB dependence by fixing -t (but not Q2)
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      78
     | 
    
      - plots of LT' vs xB shown at -t=0.17, 0.27, 0.31, 0.36
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      79
     | 
    
        - 0.17: shows an interesting trend, all of these points are in similar
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      80
     | 
    
          Q2-range
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      81
     | 
    
        - 0.27, 0.31, 0.36: xB dependence is flatter, generally good agreement
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      82
     | 
    
          between Hall C and CLAS results
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      83
     | 
    
          - some discrepancy between Hall C and CLAS results at 0.27, which cannot be
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      84
     | 
    
            traced to Q2-dependence, as both sets bracket similar Q2-ranges
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      85
     | 
    
      - don't yet know whether will include in paper or not
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      86
     | 
    
        - if we do, we probably won't compare to any theory curves
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      87
     | 
    
        - since the Q2-dependence of the data is ignored when making these plots, and
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      88
     | 
    
          the Q2-dep of the models differs from the data, this would be a messy
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      89
     | 
    
          comparison
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      90
     | 
    
      
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      91
     | 
    
      Ali
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      92
     | 
    
      ---
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      93
     | 
    
      - last week saw that Q2=3.0, W=3.14 data at high -t had few piDelta events
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      94
     | 
    
        - proposed to exclude highest -t region which had many fewer piDelta events
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      95
     | 
    
          than background events
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      96
     | 
    
      - similar study extended to other settings:
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      97
     | 
    
        - Q2=3.0, W=2.32, one t-bin
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      98
     | 
    
          - exclude events for -t>0.9, based on t-coverage of events in piDelta MM
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      99
     | 
    
            cut
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      100
     | 
    
        - Q2=4.4, W=2.74, one t-bin, exclude -t>1.0, region is tuned separately for
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      101
     | 
    
          each setting, based on how the MM plot looks at high -t
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      102
     | 
    
        - Q2=5.5, W=3.02, one t-bin, exclude -t>1.05
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      103
     | 
    
      
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      104
     | 
    
      - Q2=5.5 phi-coverage
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      105
     | 
    
        - found that the piDelta MC somehow changed phi-range to 0-2pi instead of -pi
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      106
     | 
    
          to +pi
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      107
     | 
    
        - fixes underway, but source of the problem is not yet understood
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      108
     | 
    
          - one possibility is an issue with mc_recon
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      109
     | 
    
        - Richard: the phi range in hcana is different than SIMC
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      110
     | 
    
          - Ali: this is not the issue, that was already taken into account in the
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      111
     | 
    
            code, this is a kinematics-dependent change
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      112
     | 
    
        - Ali is still testing mc_recon script if it is using correct Mpi instead of Mp
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      113
     | 
    
      
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      114
     | 
    
      
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      115
     | 
    
      Vijay
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      116
     | 
    
      -----
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      117
     | 
    
      - planning to show diagnostic plots next week on LT-separation
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      118
     | 
    
        - full set of plots not ready yet
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      119
     | 
    
      
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      120
     | 
    
      Nacer
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      121
     | 
    
      -----
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      122
     | 
    
      KaonLT Low Q2 Cut Efficiency studies
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      123
     | 
    
      - RFtime vs MMk
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      124
     | 
    
        - will use data to determine the fraction of excluded KLambda, KSigma events
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      125
     | 
    
          excluded due to the RFtime cut
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      126
     | 
    
        - since the pi+n MM region is clean, will select these events for the study,
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      127
     | 
    
          under the assumption (seems reasonable) that the RFtime distribution is the
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      128
     | 
    
          same for pi+ and K+, just shifted in phase
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      129
     | 
    
        - apply same cuts (but shifted) to pi+n events as used for K+ selection
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      130
     | 
    
        - get an efficiency of 0.987, high epsilon 4.9GeV data
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      131
     | 
    
        - will have to repeat study for low epsilon data
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      132
     | 
    
      
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      133
     | 
    
      HMS electron selection efficiency studies
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      134
     | 
    
      - quick check using physics data, rather than Heep data
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      135
     | 
    
        - For the Cherenkov, get an efficiency of 0.981, which still contains some
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      136
     | 
    
          pi- contamination
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      137
     | 
    
          - Ali: for higher Q2 KaonLT, the sample was not as clean, got efficiencies
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      138
     | 
    
            as low as 0.75, even after using tight Calorimeter cuts to clean up the
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      139
     | 
    
            event sample
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      140
     | 
    
          - looks like it's good to use Ali's electron efficiencies
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      141
     | 
    
      
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      142
     | 
    
      pi+ subtraction sample
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      143
     | 
    
      - the idea is the same as Richard's, except that a very clean pi+ sample can be
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      144
     | 
    
        obtained just by using a tight RFtime cut
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      145
     | 
    
        - still need to normalize the pi+ sample to the leakthrough
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      146
     | 
    
          - Richard: takes MMk region 0.89-0.93, scales to equalize integrals
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      147
     | 
    
      
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      148
     | 
    
      Next Meeting
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      149
     | 
    
      ------------
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      150
     | 
    
      - Thur April 25 @ 15:00 Eastern/13:00 Regina
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      151
     | 
    
        - KaonLT will go first
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      152
     | 
    
      
 
     | 
  
  
    | 
      153
     | 
    
      
 
     |