1
|
Jul 11/24 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, Alicia Postuma, Nathan Heinrich, Zach Sullivan,
|
13
|
Nacer Hamdi, Muhammad Junaid, Vijay KUmar
|
14
|
CSULA - Konrad Aniol
|
15
|
JLab - Dave Gaskell
|
16
|
FIU - Pete Markowitz
|
17
|
Virginia - Richard Trotta
|
18
|
CUA - Tanja Horn
|
19
|
Ohio - Julie Roche
|
20
|
|
21
|
Vijay
|
22
|
-----
|
23
|
Low Q2 PionLT Systematic Studies
|
24
|
- SHMS acceptance cuts +/-10%
|
25
|
- delta, xptar, yptar changed together
|
26
|
- variations in L,T,LT,TT are small
|
27
|
- Dave: you should change the cut in each variable one at a time
|
28
|
- want to treat the uncertainties in each variable as uncorrelated, and
|
29
|
then add them in quadrature
|
30
|
- changing all variables simultaneously implies the 3 quantities are
|
31
|
correlated
|
32
|
- *NB* this means 6 changes in total for each spectrometer
|
33
|
|
34
|
- changing sigLT functional form in LT-fit
|
35
|
- Exp/MC ratios at high epsilon have a pronounced cos(phi) dependence
|
36
|
- will modify functional form to see effect
|
37
|
- currently have sigLT=(A*exp(Bt)+C/t)*sin(theta*)*g(W)
|
38
|
- the C/t term was not in functions used in prior papers, will try just C as
|
39
|
a fit constant
|
40
|
|
41
|
Richard
|
42
|
-------
|
43
|
High Q2 KaonLT LT-fitting
|
44
|
- using sigL=(P1+P2*logQ2)*exp(P3*t), sigT=(p5*(t/Q2-1))*exp(P6*t)
|
45
|
- using same sigLT equation as Vijay
|
46
|
- will show only 1st iteration for all settings
|
47
|
- will concentrate on lower -t region now to try to get a good fit, but will
|
48
|
need to do full t-range later for K-pole tests
|
49
|
|
50
|
- given these caveats, initial sigL,T shown for:
|
51
|
Q2=2.115,W=2.95 Q2=3.0,W=3.14 Q2=5.5, W=3.02
|
52
|
- will look at replacing (t/Q2-1) term in sigT with (t/Q2-P7)
|
53
|
|
54
|
- Dave: Exp/MC ratios have some weird sin(phi) dependence, implies something
|
55
|
very weird is going on, not just an interference function issue
|
56
|
- Garth: suggests doing a few more iterations and plotting P1-P6 vs Q2 to see
|
57
|
what kind of Q2-depenence results
|
58
|
- *NB* then use this info as feedback for what kind of fuctional form to try
|
59
|
- Henk and GH used this approach in Fpi-1 pi-/pi+ analysis and it was useful
|
60
|
|
61
|
Alicia
|
62
|
------
|
63
|
pi+ BSA analysis
|
64
|
- some comments have been received on the paper. <10% of collaboration has
|
65
|
responded
|
66
|
- shows slides for Monday's presentation for comment
|
67
|
|
68
|
Nacer
|
69
|
-----
|
70
|
KaonLT Heep Exp/MC ratios
|
71
|
- *NB* will try modifying Heep model in SIMC to see if this helps higher beam
|
72
|
energies
|
73
|
- GH will send the routine that Bill used in his thesis
|
74
|
|
75
|
Nathan and Zach
|
76
|
---------------
|
77
|
PionLT Lumi Studies
|
78
|
- HMS, SHMS carbon scans 16738-16746
|
79
|
- changed BCM offset by 9nA (0.025uA -> 0.034ua) and low current dependence
|
80
|
looks flatter now
|
81
|
- reduced chi-square is calculated for different fits of rel.yield versus
|
82
|
beam current
|
83
|
- adding a slope results in overfit (too small chi-square), while a flat line
|
84
|
fit gives chi-square closer to 1 (although as low as ~0.5 for some plots)
|
85
|
- *NB* conclusion is that carbon scans look good and flat. GOOD NEWS!!
|
86
|
|
87
|
- HMS LH2 scans 16703-16712
|
88
|
- high current point is much lower than the others, there is at least 1
|
89
|
outlier, maybe two
|
90
|
- would imply little boiling at low current, with significantly more boiling
|
91
|
at 80uA
|
92
|
- no fits to rel.yield versus beam current are good, chi-square bad for both
|
93
|
flat fit and linear drop
|
94
|
|
95
|
- investigating possible problems:
|
96
|
- Total Live Time (TLT) shows linear drop to 92% at 120 kHz
|
97
|
- CPULT also drops linearly, but is ~80% at low rate instead of ~100%
|
98
|
- need to recheck how CPULT is calculated, might be including DTM events
|
99
|
- Dave: you should be able to form CPULT for different trigger legs
|
100
|
- *NB* this used to be in the report files, take a look at an old version
|
101
|
of the template for the calculation
|
102
|
|
103
|
- SHMS LH2 scans 16759-16764
|
104
|
- larger errors than the HMS scan but looks similar
|
105
|
- notably, the highest 80uA point is an outlier here too (although perhaps
|
106
|
not by as much)
|
107
|
|
108
|
- GH: *NB* suggest to add a small quadratic term to fit versus current
|
109
|
- since both spectrometers see similar behavior, it might be real
|
110
|
|
111
|
- Dave: target fan speed seemed to change a lot in early 12 GeV expts, makes a
|
112
|
big difference to the LH2/LD2 boiling, so that's why different early
|
113
|
experiments repot large variation in observed boiling
|
114
|
- Tanja: *NB* Josh did a study of target characteristics versus fan speed,
|
115
|
try to get a copy of his report
|
116
|
|
117
|
- 2021 Lumi scans
|
118
|
- Zach starting to set up for doing the 2021 scans
|
119
|
- Nathan reports that the analysis script should hopefully work for 2
|
120
|
spectrometer singles runs, as it is based off Richard's original script
|
121
|
- it would be helpful to see how different the results are, partly to
|
122
|
establish the systematic uncertainty in the Lumi scans
|
123
|
|
124
|
- Coin Lumi scans were also taken in PionLT
|
125
|
- Nathan's old code would have to be fixed for these studies
|
126
|
|
127
|
Junaid
|
128
|
------
|
129
|
PionLT HeeP studies
|
130
|
- results for all 9 settings shown
|
131
|
- includes offsets from Garth and Nathan's BCM calib
|
132
|
- Richard has sent new version of recon_hcana script, will check if this
|
133
|
makes any changes
|
134
|
|
135
|
- 5.988 GeV energy Exp/MC distribution comparisons look quite good
|
136
|
- 6.399 GeV Ratio<1 by about 1.5 sigma
|
137
|
- 7.942 GeV Ratio=1.118
|
138
|
- 8.483 GeV Ratio=1.147
|
139
|
- 9.177 GeV Ratio=1.261
|
140
|
- 9.884 GeV Ratio=1.156
|
141
|
- 10.547 GeV Ratio=1.232
|
142
|
- clearly a systematic trend to the ratios (with some noticeable fluctuation)
|
143
|
- rechecking error calculation on the ratios
|
144
|
|
145
|
- proton absorption correction not yet implemented to Exp yields, but this is
|
146
|
expected to make the ratios worse
|
147
|
|
148
|
- there is an issue with 2 of the Dummy Target runs
|
149
|
- very small number of events after replay
|
150
|
- got same answer for both RH7, ALMA9 versions of hcana
|
151
|
- gets a map warning when doing replay, consulting w/ Mark Jones on this
|
152
|
|
153
|
Next Meeting
|
154
|
-------------
|
155
|
- Next meet: Thur July 18 @ 15:00 Eastern/13:00 Regina
|
156
|
- PionLT will go first
|
157
|
|
158
|
|
159
|
|
160
|
|
161
|
|
162
|
|
163
|
|
164
|
|
165
|
|