|
1
|
Jun 19/24 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, Muhammad Junaid, Nathan Heinrich, Vijay Kumar, Zach
|
|
13
|
Sullivan
|
|
14
|
Ohio - Julie Roche
|
|
15
|
FIU - Pete Markowitz
|
|
16
|
Virginia - Richard Trotta
|
|
17
|
CUA - Tanja Horn
|
|
18
|
|
|
19
|
Junaid
|
|
20
|
------
|
|
21
|
PionLT Heep Offset Studies
|
|
22
|
- tested adding or subtracting momentum and beam energy offsets to resolve sign
|
|
23
|
ambiguity in how they should be applied
|
|
24
|
- 5.98GeV: positive sign offsets work better than negative sign
|
|
25
|
- all energies shown, up to 10.54GeV. + works better than - sign
|
|
26
|
- compare observed Data-MC shifts compared to predicted by GH's program
|
|
27
|
- overall, the shifts are closer to predicted by GH's program, sometimes even
|
|
28
|
better than predicted (which is allowed since the program is based on the
|
|
29
|
mean values only, and not the full distribution)
|
|
30
|
|
|
31
|
- then fixed momentum and beam energy offsets to +sign, and flip sign of
|
|
32
|
in-plane angle offsets
|
|
33
|
- + works better than -sign
|
|
34
|
- Richard: his momentum offsets were -sign, angle offsets were added
|
|
35
|
- Richard will discuss this more with Junaid next week
|
|
36
|
|
|
37
|
- Richard: observes that 10.54GeV EM, PMZ distributions too broad compared to
|
|
38
|
MC, the lower energy distributions look more similar
|
|
39
|
- showed plots from his analysis, originally SIMC was much too narrow in
|
|
40
|
comparison to data, wasn't using recon_hcana script. Using the script,
|
|
41
|
SIMC dists broadened and looked more similar to data
|
|
42
|
- two possibilities to check:
|
|
43
|
- does standard.kinematics have correct particle masses for 10.54GeV
|
|
44
|
setting?
|
|
45
|
- is recon_hcana script using correct particle masses?
|
|
46
|
- Richard and Junaid can discuss this more next week too, if needed
|
|
47
|
|
|
48
|
Next Steps:
|
|
49
|
- Heep yield ratio study
|
|
50
|
- will use Richard's LH2 boiling factors initially
|
|
51
|
|
|
52
|
Zach and Nathan
|
|
53
|
---------------
|
|
54
|
PID efficiency studies vs ELREAL rate
|
|
55
|
- as a reminder, the normalized yields were not flat w/rate, the purpose of
|
|
56
|
this study is to see if this is caused by the PID cuts
|
|
57
|
- results shown for HMS efficiencies vs ELREAL, SHMS plots in progress
|
|
58
|
|
|
59
|
- HMS carbon Cherenkov efficiency vs ELREAL rate fairly flat, only goes to
|
|
60
|
~20kHz
|
|
61
|
- efficiencies very close to what Junaid calculated
|
|
62
|
- error bars miscalculated, used Gaussian errors, in process of switching to
|
|
63
|
Binomial errors
|
|
64
|
- HMS carbon Calorimeter efficiency vs ELREAL rate also flat ~99.8%
|
|
65
|
|
|
66
|
Next Steps:
|
|
67
|
- finish SHMS efficiency studies, use Binomial errors
|
|
68
|
- assuming this study rules out the PID explanation on the observed rate
|
|
69
|
dependence, the next step would be to replay the low current data w/different
|
|
70
|
current cut in hcana, that's almost certainly the problem
|
|
71
|
|
|
72
|
Richard
|
|
73
|
-------
|
|
74
|
KaonLT LT-separations, Q2=5.5 setting
|
|
75
|
- trying to find a better parameterization that works at this Q2
|
|
76
|
- one issue is that the t-range is larger than at lower Q2
|
|
77
|
- looking to get good starting paramters that work over a broader range of t
|
|
78
|
- hoping to have some initial Q2=5.5 results by next week
|
|
79
|
|
|
80
|
- will meet with GH after SoLID meeting on Saturday afternoon to discus more
|
|
81
|
|
|
82
|
Vijay
|
|
83
|
-----
|
|
84
|
Low Q2 PionLT systematics studies
|
|
85
|
- radiative flag ON/OFF in SIMC
|
|
86
|
- extract new sigL, sigT after 2 iterations and compare to L,T with flag ON
|
|
87
|
- calculate deviation in sigL, sigT for each t-bin
|
|
88
|
- sigT on average more sensitive than sigL, particularly for lower t-bins,
|
|
89
|
however the deviation in sigT fluctuates and t-dependence not entirely
|
|
90
|
clear
|
|
91
|
- deviation in sigL seems to be more similar between t-bins
|
|
92
|
|
|
93
|
- Tanja: would like Vijay to compare plots of data & MC with flag ON/OFF
|
|
94
|
- it would also be good to compute deviations in LT, TT
|
|
95
|
|
|
96
|
Next Steps:
|
|
97
|
- will vary spectrometer acceptance cuts (xptar, yptar, delta)
|
|
98
|
- suggest to do one spectrometer at a time
|
|
99
|
- look at the distributions first to determine a sensible variation in the
|
|
100
|
cuts, also consult older theses to see what they did
|
|
101
|
|
|
102
|
Next Meeting
|
|
103
|
-------------
|
|
104
|
- Next meet: Thur June 27 @ 15:00 Eastern/13:00 Regina
|
|
105
|
- KaonLT will go first
|