|
1
|
Jul 25/24 PionLT/KaonLT Analysis Meeting Notes
|
|
2
|
----------------------------------------------
|
|
3
|
(Notes by Dave)
|
|
4
|
|
|
5
|
Today: KaonLT will be discussed first
|
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
Attendees: DG, Richard, Ali, Nacer, Junaid, Tanja, Julie, Zachary
|
|
8
|
(apologies if a I missed someone, forgot to note this at the beginning)
|
|
9
|
|
|
10
|
Richard
|
|
11
|
-------
|
|
12
|
Got analysis working on alma9 following Junaid's notes on Redmine.
|
|
13
|
Added (or maybe was already there?) ".login" script to set things up more
|
|
14
|
easily.
|
|
15
|
|
|
16
|
Working on iteration - explored changing functional forms for sigmaT and
|
|
17
|
sigmaTT. There was an issue with the 0th iteration - recon_hcana was used
|
|
18
|
to re-calculate physics quantities, but then this wasn't piped back into
|
|
19
|
into the model calculation. (DG note: I'm surprised this made a difference).
|
|
20
|
|
|
21
|
Discussed "interesting" shape of sigmaT. Will explore simpler, ad-hoc functional
|
|
22
|
form for sigmaT model (maybe just depnendant on -t?).
|
|
23
|
|
|
24
|
The asymmetry about phi=180 degrees is also strange - there's no physics that
|
|
25
|
would cause this unless:
|
|
26
|
1. There is residual beam polarization in data sample
|
|
27
|
2. The average Q2/t/W is different as a function of phi - and those dependencies
|
|
28
|
are not described correclty by the model.
|
|
29
|
|
|
30
|
Richard will provide averages of Q2/t/W vs. phi for next meeting.
|
|
31
|
|
|
32
|
Ali
|
|
33
|
---
|
|
34
|
Thesis writing! Generated asymmetry plots for all settings. Will show at
|
|
35
|
next meeting when everyone is back.
|
|
36
|
|
|
37
|
2 of 4 systematic studies done. Will also add study of impact of HGC cut
|
|
38
|
dependence.
|
|
39
|
|
|
40
|
Nacer
|
|
41
|
-----
|
|
42
|
Working on Heep analysis. Showed cuts and efficiencies. Data/simc
|
|
43
|
ratios are consistent with 1.0 but with large uncertainties (10%). It's unclear
|
|
44
|
where the large uncertainties are coming from - the statistical uncertainties
|
|
45
|
for the Heep data sample should be on the order of 1% or smaller. Nacer will
|
|
46
|
make a table of corrections and their uncertainties for next meeting.
|
|
47
|
|
|
48
|
Also showed Data/SIMC for 4 elastic form factor fits (Bosted, AMT, Brash,
|
|
49
|
Arrington). All were in pretty reasonable agreement except for the Arrington
|
|
50
|
fit. Nacer sent DG the physics_proton.f file he's using - I think I found an
|
|
51
|
incorrect sign for one of the coefficients.
|
|
52
|
|
|
53
|
Junaid
|
|
54
|
------
|
|
55
|
Also looking at Heep for 2021/2022 data. As with Nacer's analysis, the
|
|
56
|
error bars on the data/SIMC ratios are pretty big (30% in some cases). We'll
|
|
57
|
discuss the uncertainties more next week.
|
|
58
|
|
|
59
|
Also noticed some really broad distributions in Em. Julie suggests it might
|
|
60
|
not be the right variable being plotted since the W distribution looks good.
|
|
61
|
Dave suggested looking at correlations of Em with other variables.
|
|
62
|
|
|
63
|
Next Meeting
|
|
64
|
------------
|
|
65
|
Note the Special Time: Wed July 31 @ 15:00 Eastern/13:00 Regina
|
|
66
|
- PionLT will go first
|