|
1
|
Feb 20/25 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
|
|
11
|
CUA - Tanja Horn
|
|
12
|
JLab - Dave Gaskell
|
|
13
|
Virginia - Richard Trotta
|
|
14
|
FIU - Pete Markowitz
|
|
15
|
Ohio - Julie Roche
|
|
16
|
|
|
17
|
Junaid
|
|
18
|
------
|
|
19
|
Implications of updated HMS optics matrix elements
|
|
20
|
- reply received from Mark re. optics offsets
|
|
21
|
- for P<5.5 GeV/c, use phi_offset=0 for HMS, phi_offset=-8.6E-10 for SHMS
|
|
22
|
- Dave: the SHMS offset is so small that you can simply use zero for it
|
|
23
|
|
|
24
|
- GH reran the global Heep in-plane offset analysis for 9 settings
|
|
25
|
- beam energy offsets are a bit smaller than before (with old ME), momentum
|
|
26
|
and angle offsets are similar
|
|
27
|
- comparo Data to SIMC Heep distributions:
|
|
28
|
- W distributions look good
|
|
29
|
- various discrepancies between EM and PM components
|
|
30
|
- highest beam energy (10.55 GeV) is worse than the others
|
|
31
|
- we also note that the beam energy offset at 10.55 GeV has a strange value
|
|
32
|
compared to the others, the other 8 are all negative >-0.4, while the
|
|
33
|
highest energy setting is positive +0.4 (the max value allowed by the arc
|
|
34
|
energy measurement uncertainty)
|
|
35
|
- this setting has P_HMS=5.878 GeV/c
|
|
36
|
- Dave: the optics angle offsets for this momentum have been fit, but not yet
|
|
37
|
delta, there might be a residual saturation effect causing the different
|
|
38
|
behavior compared to the others
|
|
39
|
- suggests that GH try fitting offsets where the angle offsets are the same
|
|
40
|
as the other 8, but P_HMS offset is allowed to vary separately by a
|
|
41
|
larger amount
|
|
42
|
- Tanja and Julie confirm that the delta offsets are in progress, hopefully
|
|
43
|
will be done "soon"
|
|
44
|
|
|
45
|
Next steps:
|
|
46
|
- Heep Data/MC yield ratios
|
|
47
|
|
|
48
|
Nathan
|
|
49
|
------
|
|
50
|
Gave some feedback following his talk at WNPPC
|
|
51
|
- people were intrigued by the Proton Spin Crisis, but were not familiar with
|
|
52
|
it
|
|
53
|
- this was mentioned as part of the motivation for GPDs and studying the
|
|
54
|
applicability of hard-soft factorization
|
|
55
|
- we need to be more proactive in motivating our work to a broad audience
|
|
56
|
|
|
57
|
Richard
|
|
58
|
-------
|
|
59
|
Continued work on KaonLT L/T-separation
|
|
60
|
- changed Wfac to 1/(W^2-M^2)**(polynomial) where W_cent is used instead of W
|
|
61
|
varying for every bin
|
|
62
|
- this made things easier, particularly the W distributions (not shown)
|
|
63
|
|
|
64
|
- initial results shown for Q2=4.4, 5.5 with this parameterization
|
|
65
|
- Q2=4.4, ratios now show a t-dependence
|
|
66
|
- Q2=5.5, only t-bins, statistics are poor
|
|
67
|
- sig_L,T,LT,TT trends vs -t are similar for both settings
|
|
68
|
- results are very preliminary, magnitudes of cross sections don't make too
|
|
69
|
much sense yet, negative sigT in some places
|
|
70
|
- encouraged that same polynomial form can be used for both settings
|
|
71
|
- Garth: in particular for Q2=5.5, where data are sparse, suggests to fix the
|
|
72
|
non-dominant terms in the parameterization during iterations and only
|
|
73
|
letting the most important terms float
|
|
74
|
|
|
75
|
Next steps:
|
|
76
|
- will try to have sig_L,T,LT,TT results for Q2=3.0, 4.4, 5.5 using same
|
|
77
|
parameterization by next week
|
|
78
|
|
|
79
|
Vijay
|
|
80
|
-----
|
|
81
|
Q2=0.425 PionLT analysis
|
|
82
|
- shows diamond cut, looks good
|
|
83
|
|
|
84
|
- tried applying Q2=0.375 model in SIMC to Q2=0.425
|
|
85
|
- getting negative weights, diagnosing problem
|
|
86
|
- a bit of a surprise, since the kinematics of the two settings are so
|
|
87
|
similar
|
|
88
|
- Garth: maybe you have hard-coded some W_cent or Q2_cent in the code that
|
|
89
|
needs to be updated for the new setting?
|
|
90
|
|
|
91
|
Next steps:
|
|
92
|
- after SIMC, will look at t-binning
|
|
93
|
- as was mentioned last week, will try 7 bins instead of 8
|
|
94
|
|
|
95
|
Alicia
|
|
96
|
------
|
|
97
|
BSA paper modifications
|
|
98
|
- implemented changes per referee comments
|
|
99
|
- new title:
|
|
100
|
Probing Hard-Soft Factorization via BSA in exclusive pi+ electroproduction
|
|
101
|
from the proton
|
|
102
|
- revisions reviewed by GH, who suggested rearrangement of material in intro
|
|
103
|
- the rearrangement is intended to more closely focus the intro to the new
|
|
104
|
title
|
|
105
|
|
|
106
|
- proposed deadlines:
|
|
107
|
- circulate draft by EoB Feb 21
|
|
108
|
- comments due back no later than Mar 3
|
|
109
|
- Tanja suggests to circulate not only to this group, but to all co-authors,
|
|
110
|
since most comments will come from this group anyways
|
|
111
|
- also suggests to include Alicia's document on the referee comments at the
|
|
112
|
same time
|
|
113
|
- 2 emails to go out:
|
|
114
|
- all co-authors: PDF of paper and referee comments
|
|
115
|
- this group: OverLeaf link
|
|
116
|
- intending to submit to PLB by mid-March
|
|
117
|
|
|
118
|
Next Meeting
|
|
119
|
-------------
|
|
120
|
- Thur Feb 27 @ 15:30 Eastern/14:30 Regina
|
|
121
|
- KaonLT will go first
|
|
122
|
|
|
123
|
|
|
124
|
|