|
1
|
May 2/24 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, Nacer Hamdi, Ali Usman, Muhammad Junaid,
|
|
13
|
Vijay Kumar, Zach Sullivan
|
|
14
|
CUA - Casey Morean, Tanja Horn
|
|
15
|
JLab - Dave Gaskell
|
|
16
|
CSULA - Konrad Aniol
|
|
17
|
York - Stephen Kay
|
|
18
|
UVa - Richard Trotta
|
|
19
|
FIU - Pete Markowitz
|
|
20
|
|
|
21
|
Nathan
|
|
22
|
------
|
|
23
|
BCM calib results for PionLT
|
|
24
|
- Dave Mack impressed with Nathan's fast progress
|
|
25
|
- DM loked at NH's 2021 results, calculated some numbers to use
|
|
26
|
- NH looked at 2022 results, calculating his own numbers to show DM
|
|
27
|
|
|
28
|
- BCM4A 2021-22 data
|
|
29
|
- DM, NH get similar calibration constants
|
|
30
|
|
|
31
|
- BCM2 looks good, DM & NH numbers almost identical
|
|
32
|
- NH shows fit of BCM Rate vs Unser Current and Residuals
|
|
33
|
- Time vs Residual plot uses time of BCM runs themselves, to check for time
|
|
34
|
dependence in fit residuals
|
|
35
|
- residuals vs time look pretty stable, which is good news
|
|
36
|
|
|
37
|
- the residuals plot that is concerning is BCM4A, 2021 data
|
|
38
|
- shows a small (2-3 sigma) trend in residual with time
|
|
39
|
- two BCM calib for runs 12500-12900 very consistent, so also are two BCM
|
|
40
|
calib for runs 13700-14100, but a noticeable change between these two sets
|
|
41
|
- no obvious reason why these 2 sets are different, or even where to put a
|
|
42
|
time break between them
|
|
43
|
- pushed calib param to HallC_replay
|
|
44
|
- BCM4A uses error weighted average of these 4 2021 points
|
|
45
|
- also takes weighted average of 4 2022 points
|
|
46
|
- obvious break between these two sets is the end of 2021/start of 2022
|
|
47
|
running
|
|
48
|
|
|
49
|
- Conclusion:
|
|
50
|
1) can use BCM2 or BCM4A, they have similar saturation @ high current
|
|
51
|
- DM adds a quadratic term above 50uA
|
|
52
|
- DG: Nathan should use the quadratic correction already in hcana, it was
|
|
53
|
determined with a current source and should be still valid
|
|
54
|
- Nathan will apply DM's quadratic correction and see if it works
|
|
55
|
- after this, Nathan will replay all Lumi data
|
|
56
|
|
|
57
|
2) Nathan has not calibrated BCM4B
|
|
58
|
- 2022 gain is very large, saturates at high current, but it might be very
|
|
59
|
useful for low current LD2 data
|
|
60
|
- this will be left for a future student looking at LD2 data, we need to be
|
|
61
|
sure to leave an obvious note so this is not forgotten!
|
|
62
|
|
|
63
|
3) BCM4C should not be used at all
|
|
64
|
- less stable than BCM4A and similar gain
|
|
65
|
|
|
66
|
- everything seems sensible so far, we look forward to seeing the Lumi results
|
|
67
|
after the replay, to confirm the calibration and non-linear correction
|
|
68
|
|
|
69
|
Junaid
|
|
70
|
------
|
|
71
|
PionLT Heep OOP offset results
|
|
72
|
- followed Garth's method for KaonLT data
|
|
73
|
- get similar offsets
|
|
74
|
- phi_HMS=+2.28mr, phi_SHMS=-0.41mr
|
|
75
|
|
|
76
|
- error bars seem very small, and this could affect the fitting results
|
|
77
|
- GH needs to review his notes and let Junaid know what errors to use
|
|
78
|
|
|
79
|
- GH gave Junaid a set of in-plane Heep offfsets, not yet implemented
|
|
80
|
|
|
81
|
Vijay
|
|
82
|
-----
|
|
83
|
Low Q2 PionLT L/T-separations
|
|
84
|
- changed MM lower cut from 0.93 to 0.91, as per last week's feedback
|
|
85
|
- showed cointime for all 3 epsilon, and diamond cuts
|
|
86
|
- did 15 iterations since last week
|
|
87
|
- cross sections are stable now, which is good, but there are some anomalies
|
|
88
|
in the phi-distributions and Data/MC ratios
|
|
89
|
- most likely, the fitting function needs to be adjusted to get a better fit
|
|
90
|
- e.g. sigT is just a simple linear dependence in t right now
|
|
91
|
- Garth and Vijay need to discuss this early next week
|
|
92
|
|
|
93
|
Richard
|
|
94
|
-------
|
|
95
|
KaonLT L/T-separations
|
|
96
|
- concentrating now on Q2=3, W=3.14 data, after it's working better will move
|
|
97
|
next to high stats Q2=2.1 setting, and the lower statistics high Q2 settings
|
|
98
|
will be last
|
|
99
|
|
|
100
|
- tried customizing t-binning a bit more
|
|
101
|
- observes a significant Q2-shift with t-bin, and this influences the
|
|
102
|
parameterization
|
|
103
|
- still using previous equation for t_ave=0.1112+0.0066*log(Q2) used in sigT,
|
|
104
|
will need to revise this for KaonLT kinematics
|
|
105
|
|
|
106
|
- GH thinks that the function for sigT is too complcated, should try a simpler
|
|
107
|
function, as Vijay has done
|
|
108
|
|
|
109
|
- Richard is giving a talk on Meson Structure @ EIC in Nanjing, May 14-17
|
|
110
|
- 25+10 min talk
|
|
111
|
- has old slides to use
|
|
112
|
- needs to circulate a draft soon
|
|
113
|
|
|
114
|
Ali
|
|
115
|
---
|
|
116
|
piDelta BSA analysis
|
|
117
|
- looking at MM fits again after fixing recon_hcana to use m_pi instead of m_p
|
|
118
|
|
|
119
|
- Q2=5.5 will have one t-bin, -t<1.05, excluding 1.05-1.60 region
|
|
120
|
- gets reasonable phi coverage now
|
|
121
|
- varied t-cut and then looked at MM distribution, to see what t-cut to use
|
|
122
|
|
|
123
|
- Center setting: all 8 phi-bins are filled
|
|
124
|
- shape study fits generally consistent w/shape of data
|
|
125
|
- data have some fluctuations (statistics?) and the MC smoothly goes
|
|
126
|
through the trend
|
|
127
|
|
|
128
|
- Right setting: data fill 4 phi-bins, 2 have lower statistics, but MM fit
|
|
129
|
still does a reasonable job
|
|
130
|
|
|
131
|
- Left setting: data fill the other 4 phi-bins, 2 with low statistics
|
|
132
|
- fit fails for the 2 low stats phi bins also because MM range is limited
|
|
133
|
- however, these bins are filled w/center data, so overall will be OK
|
|
134
|
|
|
135
|
- will redo shape study for other (Q2,W) kinematics
|
|
136
|
|
|
137
|
- Garth: the SIMC resolution tuning was done when recon_hcana had wrong mass
|
|
138
|
- did you rerun your scripts to check that things are OK?
|
|
139
|
- yes, checked that MC did not over-estimate tail for any t-phi bin
|
|
140
|
|
|
141
|
Nacer
|
|
142
|
-----
|
|
143
|
Low Q2 KaonLT analysis
|
|
144
|
- looked at Lumi scripts written by Richard
|
|
145
|
- had to do some path tweaks to get them to work in his account
|
|
146
|
- Richard will point Nacer to special Lumi runs done later by Mark Jones &
|
|
147
|
Peter Bosted @ 10.6 GeV
|
|
148
|
- this exercise is mostly for Nacer's overall understanding, next step would
|
|
149
|
be to look more closely at the Heep data taken with 3.8, 4.9 GeV beam
|
|
150
|
|
|
151
|
Hall A/C Summer Workshop discussion
|
|
152
|
-----------------------------------
|
|
153
|
- it seems they are looking for talks about "publication ready" results
|
|
154
|
- Richard, Vijay, Ali results not yet at this stage, maybe January workshop
|
|
155
|
would be better
|
|
156
|
- Alicia has done further BSA work since January update, and plots she shows
|
|
157
|
should be the same ones as in the paper
|
|
158
|
- Tanja will reply
|
|
159
|
- workshop is July 15-16
|
|
160
|
|
|
161
|
Next Meeting
|
|
162
|
------------
|
|
163
|
- Thur May 9 @ 15:00 Eastern/13:00 Regina
|
|
164
|
- KaonLT will go first
|
|
165
|
|
|
166
|
|
|
167
|
|
|
168
|
|
|
169
|
|