1
|
Oct 17/24 PionLT/KaonLT Analysis Meeting Notes
|
2
|
----------------------------------------------
|
3
|
(Notes by GH)
|
4
|
|
5
|
Today: PionLT will be discussed first
|
6
|
|
7
|
Present
|
8
|
-------
|
9
|
Regina - Garth Huber, Alicia Postuma, Muhammad Junaid, Nathan Heinrich,
|
10
|
Vijay Kumar, Ali Usman, Nacer Hamdi, Argha Das
|
11
|
JLab - Dave Gaskell
|
12
|
CSULA - Konrad Aniol
|
13
|
CUA - Tanja Horn
|
14
|
Virginia - Richard Trotta
|
15
|
Ohio - Julie Roche
|
16
|
|
17
|
Nathan
|
18
|
------
|
19
|
- working on random subtractions on PionLT Coin Lumi data, no report yet
|
20
|
|
21
|
Junaid
|
22
|
------
|
23
|
PionLT pi+ PID study, 5.9 GeV setting
|
24
|
- applied Aero>3.0pe and 1.2<RF<3.4 cuts
|
25
|
- Dave: prefer to use fewest #cuts possible, as each one needs an efficiency
|
26
|
to be evaluated, and possibly larger systematic uncertainties
|
27
|
- Garth: but if extra cut means that the applied cuts can be looser, this
|
28
|
results in smaller cut dependence, and lower systematics. So it depends on
|
29
|
exactly what cuts are needed for the data in question
|
30
|
|
31
|
- Dave: is the path length correction implemented in this RF time?
|
32
|
- no, still looking into that
|
33
|
- *NB* Stephen had done some initial implementation, best to consult him
|
34
|
|
35
|
- shows pi+n MM peak under different cuts, estimated #counts in peak with
|
36
|
background
|
37
|
- difference in #counts between Acceptance only, and Acceptance+CoinTime+Aero
|
38
|
is very large, 21k vs 14k
|
39
|
- *NB* need to understand which cut is causing such a large drop in #counts,
|
40
|
seems unlikely to be random subtraction since the counts are all in pi+n MM
|
41
|
peak
|
42
|
- Ali: *NB* suggests to try a wide CoinTime cut in the Acceptance only plot,
|
43
|
wide enough to not remove p, K+ but still exclude randoms
|
44
|
|
45
|
- will repeat stdy for 7.9 and 8.5 GeV settings from 2022 data
|
46
|
|
47
|
HMS Matrix Elements
|
48
|
- implementing new HMS ME for 6.6 GeV/c setting
|
49
|
|
50
|
Richard
|
51
|
-------
|
52
|
KaonLT trying different sigTT parameterizations for Q2=3.0, W=3.14 data set
|
53
|
- the different paramterizations tried:
|
54
|
- Marco's thesis sigTT form
|
55
|
- Marco's sigTT with sin^2(theta) and sin^3(theta) added
|
56
|
- Vijay's thesis sigTT form, with pole term removed
|
57
|
- Richard's earlier function:
|
58
|
(-p13*|t|+p14)*|t|**(Q^2/p15)-p16*Q^2*sin^2(theta)
|
59
|
- all use 1/(W^2-mp^2)**n with n=2.25
|
60
|
|
61
|
- Data/MC ratio plots vs phi for all parameterizations, all after 5 iterations
|
62
|
- Marco's thesis form gives slightly better fit than the others
|
63
|
- Marco with sin^2(theta) is similar
|
64
|
- all 5 have similar oscillations in ratio vs phi, but a bit more damped with
|
65
|
Marco equation
|
66
|
- will do more iterations w/ Marco's sigTT and look at other settings
|
67
|
|
68
|
- Garth: the calculated chi-square for your plots seems too high in
|
69
|
comparison with the fluctuations in the plots
|
70
|
- *NB* need to recheck chi-square calculation, suspicion is that statistical
|
71
|
errors are not taken into account correctly
|
72
|
|
73
|
Vijay
|
74
|
-----
|
75
|
Replaying Q^2=0.42 PionLT data
|
76
|
- running into some problems adapting replay scripts for Alma9
|
77
|
- getting a STE_LAUNCH_FAIL error, indicating incorrect batch queue
|
78
|
parameters
|
79
|
- Dave: are you using hcswif script which was hardwired to CentOS7? If so,
|
80
|
you will need to modify it
|
81
|
|
82
|
Alicia
|
83
|
------
|
84
|
BSA revised manuscript has been submitted to PRL, waiting w/ editor
|
85
|
|
86
|
Ali
|
87
|
---
|
88
|
Back to thesis writing after returning from DNP meeting in Boston
|
89
|
- next analysis step will be to evaluate systematic uncertainties on piDelta
|
90
|
BSA
|
91
|
|
92
|
Nacer
|
93
|
-----
|
94
|
KaonLT Heep-COIN analysis
|
95
|
- using new SHMS-3/4 effs after Mark's code improvements (more restrictive
|
96
|
selection criteria)
|
97
|
- effs now >99.5%, vs 92-97% before
|
98
|
- shows plots of Data vs SIMC under various conditions
|
99
|
- no cuts
|
100
|
- CoinTime, HCer, HCal, MMp(exclude pi0)<0.1 GeV
|
101
|
- after cuts, EM, PM, W data distributions are much closer to SIMC prediction
|
102
|
- Jule: there is a deviation "small extra bump" of data around PM~0.1 GeV/c
|
103
|
not seen in the simulation
|
104
|
|
105
|
- Dave: Mark Jones recently reminded that in his VCS analysis, there was a
|
106
|
low W facture anomaly that he resolved in a modified tracking algorithm
|
107
|
- changed how clusters are defined, more candiate tracks per event, better
|
108
|
selection of "best track" in event
|
109
|
- There are four main changes. Each can be turned on/off separately by
|
110
|
parameters. In the end, the VCS analysis used them all.
|
111
|
- *NB* see Mark's presentation posted on RedMine: MJones-HCANA_DC-update.pdf
|
112
|
- Mark added output to the root tree that makes it easier to understand the
|
113
|
clustering and tracking which is not documented in the slideshow
|
114
|
(though hinted at it at the end)
|
115
|
- *NB* GH will see if Mark can give a summary of it at our next meeting
|
116
|
|
117
|
- Data/MC ratios w/o proton absorption:
|
118
|
- 0.992-1.011 +/- 0.007, almost no beam energy dependence
|
119
|
- Garth: Nacer had looked earlier at the SIMC elastic model dependence, which
|
120
|
is 2-5%, depending on Q^2
|
121
|
|
122
|
KaonLT Heep-SINGLES analysis
|
123
|
- HMS electrons: 3.8 GeV, P_HMS=2.026 GeV/c
|
124
|
- Dave: PMX,Y,Z,PM,EM not defined in hcana for singles events
|
125
|
- W shows an enhancement at the Delta mass in data, apply 0.9<W<1.05 cut to
|
126
|
eliminate
|
127
|
- agreement between Data and MC for HMS Focal Plane variables very good
|
128
|
- Data/MC ratio 1.037+/-0.001
|
129
|
|
130
|
- SHMS electrons: run 6629
|
131
|
- W data plot is empty
|
132
|
- *NB* this works for Vijay, so check with him on what's wrong
|
133
|
|
134
|
Next Meeting
|
135
|
-------------
|
136
|
- Thur Oct 24 @ 16:30 Eastern/14:30 Regina
|
137
|
- KaonLT will go first
|
138
|
|
139
|
|
140
|
|
141
|
|
142
|
|
143
|
|