|
1
|
Dec 5/24 PionLT/KaonLT Analysis Meeting Notes
|
|
2
|
---------------------------------------------
|
|
3
|
(Notes by GH)
|
|
4
|
|
|
5
|
Today: KaonLT will be discussed first
|
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
Present
|
|
8
|
-------
|
|
9
|
Regina - Garth Huber, Nathan Heinrich, Ali Usman, Vijay Kumar,
|
|
10
|
Nacer Hamdi, Alicia Postuma
|
|
11
|
JLab - Dave Gaskell
|
|
12
|
CUA - Tanja Horn
|
|
13
|
Virginia - Richard Trotta
|
|
14
|
FIU - Pete Markowitz
|
|
15
|
Ohio - Julie Roche
|
|
16
|
|
|
17
|
Richard
|
|
18
|
-------
|
|
19
|
KaonLT Q2=3.0 W=3.14 analysis
|
|
20
|
- shifted MM so that data and MC are consistent when MM cut is applied
|
|
21
|
- fit top of peak w/Gaussian, both data and MC
|
|
22
|
- shift was ~5 MeV, fairly consistent
|
|
23
|
- if only a global MM fit was done (rather than by run) the shift is larger
|
|
24
|
~10 MeV due to outlier runs
|
|
25
|
- reran all cut scripts over holiday to implement the MM offsets
|
|
26
|
- also identified some bugs that have been fixed, a negative event filter for
|
|
27
|
debugging purposes was mistakenly still in
|
|
28
|
|
|
29
|
- rechecked pi+ leakthrough subtraction for each (t,phi) bin
|
|
30
|
- pion leakthrough is much worse for the lowest -t=0.18 compared to second
|
|
31
|
t-bin
|
|
32
|
- pion leakthrough probably explains why the earlier L,T results resulted in
|
|
33
|
a large increase in cross section for lowest -t bin
|
|
34
|
|
|
35
|
- some discussion about t-binning, the lowest 0.15-0.21 -t bin has low
|
|
36
|
statistics
|
|
37
|
- Dave: suggests to raise upper limit of lower bin to increase statistical
|
|
38
|
significance, other bins would then shift accordingly
|
|
39
|
- might also reduce the number of t-bins, using a minimum of 1k events per
|
|
40
|
t-bin (summed over phi, SHMS settings), 2k might be better?
|
|
41
|
|
|
42
|
Next steps:
|
|
43
|
- adjust t-bins
|
|
44
|
- will recheck L/T-iterations, code was crashing due to MM misalighment issue
|
|
45
|
- then will look at Q2=4.4 setting
|
|
46
|
|
|
47
|
- aiming to circulate draft slides ~Jan 4
|
|
48
|
|
|
49
|
Vijay
|
|
50
|
-----
|
|
51
|
Low Q2 PionLT analysis
|
|
52
|
- started setting up for Q2=0.42 analysis
|
|
53
|
- all data (both Q2) are replayed, and available
|
|
54
|
|
|
55
|
- investigating issue with Q2=0.38 analysis, that L,T results are significantly
|
|
56
|
lower than expected (Ackermann data)
|
|
57
|
- did a quick comparison of iteration functions compared to default
|
|
58
|
physics_pion parameterization, these differ by about ~2x for middle
|
|
59
|
epsilon, not 10x
|
|
60
|
|
|
61
|
- aiming to circulate draft slides early Jan
|
|
62
|
|
|
63
|
Alicia
|
|
64
|
------
|
|
65
|
BSA paper rejected by PRL, 4th referee negative
|
|
66
|
- referee B was polite but negative
|
|
67
|
- referee D seemed to not understand some parts of the paper, the report will
|
|
68
|
be helpful in seeing what parts we need to improve
|
|
69
|
- in the end, the tigher PRL acceptance criteria seemed to be an issue
|
|
70
|
|
|
71
|
- editor suggested we try PRD
|
|
72
|
- PRD does have a letters section, slightly longer length limit than PRL
|
|
73
|
- categories in PRC are a better fit for us than PRD
|
|
74
|
|
|
75
|
- Dave suggests PLB
|
|
76
|
- 2 years ago, transferred EMC paper from PRL to PRC, but it was still a
|
|
77
|
hassle
|
|
78
|
- general consensus that this is the best option
|
|
79
|
|
|
80
|
- Alicia will provide a synopsis of what happened for collaboration info
|
|
81
|
- will prepare a new version for PLB
|
|
82
|
|
|
83
|
Ali
|
|
84
|
---
|
|
85
|
- thesis writing
|
|
86
|
- will circulate draft slides early Jan
|
|
87
|
|
|
88
|
Nacer
|
|
89
|
-----
|
|
90
|
KaonLT Heep singles
|
|
91
|
- following up on ytar MC-Data comparo suggested by GH
|
|
92
|
- found the correct variable, Richard helped a lot
|
|
93
|
- has results for some energies, still waiting for others, prefers to wait for
|
|
94
|
full results before distributing results
|
|
95
|
|
|
96
|
- 10.6 GeV has significantly worse W-resolution than others
|
|
97
|
- GH raises issue of SIMC higher beam energy spread, we're using the default
|
|
98
|
beam energy spread for all energies, should we use a wider spread for
|
|
99
|
5-pass?
|
|
100
|
- Dave: investigated beam energy effects for 22 GeV, found that
|
|
101
|
spectrometer resolution still dominated over beam energy spread
|
|
102
|
- finds a new paper Phys Rev Accel Beams 27 084802:
|
|
103
|
2E-4 beam energy spread at top energy
|
|
104
|
HMS,SHMS resolution is ~0.1%
|
|
105
|
- agrees we should in principle use a wider energy spread for 5-pass, but
|
|
106
|
it won't solve this problem
|
|
107
|
|
|
108
|
Nathan
|
|
109
|
------
|
|
110
|
- working on finishing up proton structure class
|
|
111
|
- will get to Lumi studies next, would like to have them completed before
|
|
112
|
Junaid gets back (Jan 15)
|
|
113
|
|
|
114
|
Next Meeting
|
|
115
|
-------------
|
|
116
|
- Thur Dec 12 @ 16:00 Eastern/15:00 Regina
|
|
117
|
- PionLT will go first
|
|
118
|
- Garth can't attend, Richard will take notes
|
|
119
|
|
|
120
|
|