1
|
Jun 13/24 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, Vijay Kumar, Ali Usman, Muhammad Junaid, Zach Sullivan
|
13
|
JLab - Dave Gaskell
|
14
|
FIU - Pete Markowitz
|
15
|
Virginia - Richard Trotta
|
16
|
CUA - Tanja Horn
|
17
|
|
18
|
Vijay
|
19
|
-----
|
20
|
MM cut study for low Q2 PionLT data
|
21
|
- scanned MM cuts from 0.972 to 0.988 GeV
|
22
|
- reanalyzed both data and SIMC with these cuts
|
23
|
- reran LTsep script, but did no iterations with model
|
24
|
- computed variation in sigL and sigT compared to standard MM cut at 0.980
|
25
|
|
26
|
- results show nearly zero variation in lowest -t bin, rising to ~5% for
|
27
|
highest -t bin
|
28
|
- calculated RMS of deviations (in absolute units) for all 8 cuts
|
29
|
- Dave: if the deviation is systematic between different MM cuts, cannot
|
30
|
use the RMS to determine the uncertainty
|
31
|
- however, the deviation seems somewhat random, signs flip too, so maybe RMS
|
32
|
is okay
|
33
|
- no one else has any other suggestions
|
34
|
- Vijay will also look at deviations for sigLT and sigTT
|
35
|
|
36
|
Next steps
|
37
|
- computing RadFlag On/Off systematic
|
38
|
- investigate variations in XPtar YPtar cuts
|
39
|
|
40
|
Ali
|
41
|
---
|
42
|
- spent a lot of time this week making plots for thesis, calibs, efficiencies,
|
43
|
PID
|
44
|
|
45
|
- completed MM shape study for piDelta BSA, to show results next week
|
46
|
- extracted BSA for all settings
|
47
|
- will extract LT'
|
48
|
|
49
|
- in parallel with this, computing some systematic uncertainties related to MM
|
50
|
fitting
|
51
|
- variation in neutron fit
|
52
|
- MC to data normalization
|
53
|
- still has to look at MM cut dep to BSA result
|
54
|
|
55
|
- worked w/Nacer last week on Heep analysis, will show some plots next week
|
56
|
- at last meeting, Nacer's low Q2 analysis agreed well w/ Richard
|
57
|
- worked on 6.2 GeV Heep, also compares well w/ Richard
|
58
|
- still looking at Cherenkov efficiency
|
59
|
- Junaid's Cherenkov eff (~99.8% vs 97%) helps the discrepancy compared to
|
60
|
Ali's eff, but the discrepancy still reamins at 6.2 GeV
|
61
|
|
62
|
- Dicussion on things that might address the discrepancy
|
63
|
- *NB* Alternate Heep cross section parameterizations are available,
|
64
|
e.g. Bill checked multiple Heep parameterizations in his thesis, since the
|
65
|
Heep cross sections are less reliable at higher Q2, it would be a god idea
|
66
|
to switch parameterization in SIMC and see what the effect is
|
67
|
|
68
|
- Dave: is proton absorption included in the Heep analysis?
|
69
|
- SIMC does not correct for absorption, only scattering
|
70
|
- *NB* need to apply the correction to the Exp data
|
71
|
- it could be a 4-5% correction, depending on kinematics
|
72
|
- *NB* we had discussed this before, but it was forgotten, Richard and
|
73
|
Vijay need to also determine a correction for pi/K absorption and apply
|
74
|
it to physics data prior to doing LT-separations
|
75
|
|
76
|
- Junaid: Zach applied 3 different Cherenov cuts in his PionLT analysis, gets
|
77
|
efficiencies similar to Junaid
|
78
|
- need to check if Cherenkov gas pressure changed between KaonLT and
|
79
|
PionLT, this could explain the reason why the inefficiency is 10x less
|
80
|
for PionLT
|
81
|
- Dave: the same gas was used, but the pressure was changed
|
82
|
- Burcu identified a light leak in the J/psi data, which caused a large
|
83
|
inefficiency issue
|
84
|
- the light leak wouldn't have been fixed until much later
|
85
|
- *NB* Ali/Zach(?) should search hclog for info on on when the leak was
|
86
|
fixed and what gas pressures were set
|
87
|
|
88
|
- if we can't explain the discrepancy, we might have to take the
|
89
|
difference between them as a systematic, which would be undesirable
|
90
|
- if we can explain the discrepancy, then we have a good reason to apply
|
91
|
different efficiencies to KaonLT and PionLT data, and the assigned
|
92
|
systematic is much lower
|
93
|
|
94
|
Richard
|
95
|
--------
|
96
|
KaonLT LT-sep iterations
|
97
|
- 1st iteration w/ new functional form for Q2=5.5
|
98
|
- 2nd t-bin has highest statistics
|
99
|
- has 4 t-bins now, probably should reduce to 3 t-bins
|
100
|
|
101
|
- some discussion on what minimum #phi-bins is acceptable
|
102
|
- too few phi-bins makes it impossible to separate LT from TT
|
103
|
- has 6 phi-bins now, which is also the minimum number that Marco had
|
104
|
- Garth: a good way to find out what is the true minimum #phi-bins is to do
|
105
|
an MC study similar to what Alicia did, and see what results in a reliable
|
106
|
separation of LT, TT for different #bins
|
107
|
- *NB* Richard will look into revising #bins, will contact Alicia as well
|
108
|
|
109
|
Junaid
|
110
|
------
|
111
|
PionLT Heep coin analysis, 9 settings
|
112
|
- rechecked all files, found there was a momentum offset applied to the data
|
113
|
prior to determining offsets
|
114
|
- renalyzed data w/o offsets, GH generated new offsets
|
115
|
- new offsets very similar values to before
|
116
|
|
117
|
- checking what sign of offset to apply, tried +/- sign momentum offsets
|
118
|
- wrong sign offset gives results nearly identical to correct sign offset,
|
119
|
presumably because the applied momentum offset is very small
|
120
|
- Garth: the beam energy offset and the momentum offsets should be applied
|
121
|
the same way, so you probably should check changing all 3 in the same way
|
122
|
|
123
|
Zach
|
124
|
----
|
125
|
Working on PionLT efficiencies for Lumi analysis
|
126
|
- will discuss results w/ Nathan before showing
|
127
|
|
128
|
Next Meeting
|
129
|
-------------
|
130
|
*NOTE THE SPECIAL TIME*
|
131
|
- Next meet: Wed June 19 @ 15:00 Eastern/13:00 Regina
|
132
|
- PionLT will go first
|