|
1
|
Nov 13-14/25 PionLT/KaonLT Analysis Meeting Notes
|
|
2
|
-------------------------------------------------
|
|
3
|
(Notes by RLT & 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
|
Thursday: Present
|
|
11
|
----------------
|
|
12
|
Regina - Nathan Heinrich, Nacer Hamdi, Alicia Postuma, Nermin Sadoun
|
|
13
|
Virginia - Richard Trotta
|
|
14
|
CUA - Tanja Horn, Chi Kin Tam
|
|
15
|
JLab - Dave Gaskell
|
|
16
|
|
|
17
|
Richard
|
|
18
|
-------
|
|
19
|
KaonLT Q2=3.0, W=2.32 LT-sep
|
|
20
|
- Using the same functional forms as Q2=4.4, W=32.74
|
|
21
|
- Ratios look fairly flat with little structure. There are 2-3 bins that dip
|
|
22
|
and need investigation
|
|
23
|
- The distributions look okay overall, but more iterations will be needed
|
|
24
|
(currently only 3). The delta distributions, in particular, are a bit off.
|
|
25
|
|
|
26
|
- New outline for analysis going forward
|
|
27
|
- Finish and refine Q2=3.0/W=2.32, Q2=4.4/W=2.74,Q2=5.5/W=2.95 (scaling
|
|
28
|
settings)
|
|
29
|
- Then work on the fit algorithm paper and studies (fitting Fpi1/2, low Q2
|
|
30
|
Pion-KaonLT, etc. data)
|
|
31
|
- Chi Kin to finish up Q2=3.0/W=3.14
|
|
32
|
- Then finish cross section systematics checks on these settings
|
|
33
|
- Once Sameer is finished up with cointime blocking correction, a final full
|
|
34
|
replay will be done
|
|
35
|
- With the full replay finished, Richard will check and finalize
|
|
36
|
systematics
|
|
37
|
|
|
38
|
Chi Kin
|
|
39
|
-------
|
|
40
|
KaonLT Q2=3.0, W=3.14 analysis
|
|
41
|
- Rebinning in t and adjusting t-range
|
|
42
|
- Showed average t per bin vs t bin center
|
|
43
|
- Same functional form as Richard
|
|
44
|
- Initial parameters determined from distributions
|
|
45
|
- 0th iteration lookd reasonable with high > low eps in unseparated cross
|
|
46
|
sections
|
|
47
|
- Shape a bit odd for sigT and just one iteration dramatically changes the
|
|
48
|
cross sections and ratios look much worse
|
|
49
|
- Unphysical parameters (local minima likely) result in a negative total
|
|
50
|
cross section
|
|
51
|
- Will be using Richard's fit algorithm for a better set of initial
|
|
52
|
parameters
|
|
53
|
|
|
54
|
- Nathan: given the plots, how can the total cross section be negative?
|
|
55
|
- Likely a bug in the code because the 0th iteration overall looks very
|
|
56
|
reasonable (unspe/ratios/sep/kin/etc).
|
|
57
|
- *NB* GH: it's important to plot cross sections over the full kinematic
|
|
58
|
range of the data, not just the range spanned by the nominal t-values of
|
|
59
|
the bins. Maybe the parameterization is doing something weird on the
|
|
60
|
edge of the distribution?
|
|
61
|
|
|
62
|
- Discussion if Kin should shift data and simc MM to lambda mass of 1.115
|
|
63
|
or just shift MM data to simc.
|
|
64
|
- Tanja: simc is "truth" so data should shift to it
|
|
65
|
|
|
66
|
Alicia
|
|
67
|
------
|
|
68
|
pi+n BSA PLB paper
|
|
69
|
- Has been accepted, there are a few, brief comments from one referee
|
|
70
|
- There's some confusion about exact coverage and correlation of kinematics
|
|
71
|
for different settings
|
|
72
|
- Garth suggested adding a t-phi plot but space is limited.
|
|
73
|
- Tanja suggested a reference to previous LT papers
|
|
74
|
- what Garth actually meant was to put the plot in the supplemental
|
|
75
|
material, not the paper
|
|
76
|
- Referee unsure why bin widths are indicated by standard deviation instead
|
|
77
|
of just edge of each bin
|
|
78
|
- Alicia and Garth have showed to our group the different methods so just
|
|
79
|
explaining to referee is probably fine
|
|
80
|
- Radiation corrections are still not discussed in text
|
|
81
|
- Alicia is expanding some of the text
|
|
82
|
- Fix Q2/x but correlated with t
|
|
83
|
- Leave as it
|
|
84
|
- Proper citations
|
|
85
|
- PLB Website issues
|
|
86
|
- Figure 7: GK model has shows such strong dependence on Q2
|
|
87
|
- Alicia: scaling of denominator to show dependence, but is that worth
|
|
88
|
doing?
|
|
89
|
- Tanja: Probably fine as is, not a theory paper
|
|
90
|
- Various minor edits to wording, etc.
|
|
91
|
- No comments, looks good
|
|
92
|
- expect to submit final version for publication in a few days
|
|
93
|
|
|
94
|
Nacer
|
|
95
|
-----
|
|
96
|
KaonLT Q2=0.5 LT-sep
|
|
97
|
- Verbal: Trying to improve ratios with continued adjustments
|
|
98
|
|
|
99
|
Nathan
|
|
100
|
------
|
|
101
|
PionLT finishing up CoinLumi studies
|
|
102
|
- Showed coin yield vs current
|
|
103
|
- Using Dave's previous suggestion, fit to constant
|
|
104
|
- No chi2 yet from Nathan, Dave says that should be first step.
|
|
105
|
- If good chi2 then statistically consistent with a constant so no systematic
|
|
106
|
correction.
|
|
107
|
- If bad, then need to think about systematic. Possibly, amplify error bar
|
|
108
|
until good chi2 achieved then quantify that amplification.
|
|
109
|
- Friday update: did a combined fit using error-weighted average, get flat vs
|
|
110
|
rate within ~1 sigma
|
|
111
|
- Note added after meeting: Nathan finds that adding 0.72% to the error bars
|
|
112
|
results in a reduced Chi-square of 1. Dave and Garth agree the adjusted
|
|
113
|
plots look good
|
|
114
|
|
|
115
|
- Coinblock corr vs coin rate
|
|
116
|
- A bit of a spread, but trends per setting are consistent
|
|
117
|
- Two settings (Nathan's categorization, exclusive lumi 3 vs 4/5) should be
|
|
118
|
the same but aren't. Someone may have adjusted the electronics, but no
|
|
119
|
log entry on this.
|
|
120
|
- Garth has no recollection of any such electronics changes during the run
|
|
121
|
- One other point is off trend, but error bars are large so likely low
|
|
122
|
statistics run.
|
|
123
|
|
|
124
|
|
|
125
|
Friday: Present
|
|
126
|
---------------
|
|
127
|
Regina - Garth Huber, Nathan Heinrich, Alicia Postuma, Muhammad Junaid,
|
|
128
|
Vijay Kumar, Nacer Hamdi
|
|
129
|
CSULA - Konrad Aniol
|
|
130
|
FIU - Pete Markowitz
|
|
131
|
Virginia - Richard Trotta
|
|
132
|
CUA - Tanja Horn, Chi Kin Tam, Sameer Jain
|
|
133
|
JMU - Gabriel Niculescu
|
|
134
|
York - Stephen Kay
|
|
135
|
Ohio - Julie Roche
|
|
136
|
|
|
137
|
Vijay
|
|
138
|
-----
|
|
139
|
New Low Q2 PionLT results
|
|
140
|
- CoinTime blocking and pion absorption corrections now included for both Q2
|
|
141
|
- pion absoprtion correction: 2.02%+/-0.045% (see June 5/25 slides),
|
|
142
|
correction is applied by dividing by 0.979
|
|
143
|
- Q2=0.375 results
|
|
144
|
- mid epsilon Data/MC ratios: 0.9-1.2 with some scatter
|
|
145
|
- Rosenbluth fit of sig_uns has smaller chi-square than before
|
|
146
|
- 5-10 iterations done after corrections applied
|
|
147
|
- Q2=0.425 results
|
|
148
|
- mid epsilon Data/MC ratios: some larger ratios at edges of phi-dist, 0 and
|
|
149
|
360 deg
|
|
150
|
- TT trends to 0 at -t=0.01, LT is constant (not zero) at -t=0.01
|
|
151
|
- sigL vs t is less smooth than at Q2=0.375, big jump for lowest t-bin
|
|
152
|
- next steps:
|
|
153
|
- working on systematic uncertainties
|
|
154
|
- preparing kinematics and acceptance plots for next week
|
|
155
|
- will send tar files of results to spokespersons
|
|
156
|
|
|
157
|
Sameer
|
|
158
|
------
|
|
159
|
KaonLT CoinTime blocking at 6.2, 8.2, 10.6 GeV beam energies
|
|
160
|
- still need ROOT files for Q2=4.4 (10.6 GeV)
|
|
161
|
- no error bars yet
|
|
162
|
|
|
163
|
- blocking corr @ Q2=3.0, W=3.14
|
|
164
|
- get 3 parallel bands vs Rate with values of 0.92, 0.93, 0.94
|
|
165
|
- *NB* Garth: this seems weird, is it a round off issue when calculating the
|
|
166
|
ratio?
|
|
167
|
- blocking corr @ Q2=5.5, W=3.02
|
|
168
|
- high epsilon shows a band at 0.78, with rest at 0.85
|
|
169
|
- *NB* Nathan: concerned that the timing window is not set correctly for
|
|
170
|
these
|
|
171
|
- maybe standard.database is not pointing to the correct file for these
|
|
172
|
runs?
|
|
173
|
- low epsilon shows some corrections of 0.4 at low rate
|
|
174
|
- *NB* Nathan: this needs more investigation, compare the shape of timing
|
|
175
|
plots for good and bad runs
|
|
176
|
- if shapes are similar, the correction can't be very different
|
|
177
|
- if shapes are different, then need to confirm the applied cuts are
|
|
178
|
correct
|
|
179
|
- *NB* Garth: please show sufficient information next time that we can help
|
|
180
|
you determine what might be wrong
|
|
181
|
|
|
182
|
Junaid
|
|
183
|
------
|
|
184
|
PionLT Q2=3.85, W=2.62 LT-sep
|
|
185
|
- working on pion absorption correction following Alicia's instructions
|
|
186
|
- turned on NGC in Geant4 code
|
|
187
|
- set Aerogel tray to n=1.011 thickness
|
|
188
|
- ran 100k events
|
|
189
|
- applied default cuts should be okay for this configuration
|
|
190
|
- resulting correction is similar to Vijay's but there are more secondary
|
|
191
|
particles produced due to the higher momentum
|
|
192
|
- *NB* Garth: please give more info next time on how the secondaries are
|
|
193
|
handled in your Geant4 analysis
|
|
194
|
- all other corrections are applied to the data
|
|
195
|
|
|
196
|
|
|
197
|
Next Week Meetings
|
|
198
|
------------------
|
|
199
|
- Thurs: Nov 20 @ 16:00 Eastern/15:00 Regina
|
|
200
|
- PionLT will go first
|
|
201
|
|
|
202
|
- Fri: Nov 21 @ 11:00 Eastern/10:00 Regina
|
|
203
|
- we will continue where we left off
|
|
204
|
|
|
205
|
|
|
206
|
|
|
207
|
|