Project

General

Profile

Kaon LT Meetings » mtg_24jul11.txt

Garth Huber, 07/12/2024 07:14 PM

 
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

    
(468-468/468)