|
1
|
February 5th, 2026
|
|
2
|
|
|
3
|
Today: PionLT will be discussed first
|
|
4
|
|
|
5
|
Present
|
|
6
|
---
|
|
7
|
Regina - Muhammad Junaid, Alicia Postum, Nathan Heinrich, Abdenacer Hamdi
|
|
8
|
CUA - Tanja Horn, Sameer Jain, Chi Kin Tam
|
|
9
|
Virginia - Richard Trotta
|
|
10
|
Jlab- Dave Gaskell
|
|
11
|
CSULA - Konrad Aniol
|
|
12
|
Ohio - Julie Roche
|
|
13
|
---
|
|
14
|
Alicia
|
|
15
|
- Proton/Omega PID (Data vs SIMC) plots look a bit odd
|
|
16
|
- There was some confusion on variable naming conventions so Alicia will fix these
|
|
17
|
Sameer
|
|
18
|
- Some questions on event type
|
|
19
|
- Nathan provided some explanations on how the DAQ records information coming in from the trigger
|
|
20
|
- (Prescaled) Singles events may be blocked but (no PS) coin events are kept
|
|
21
|
- Sameer has a document on coinblock studies but can't upload due to issues with DocDB. He will upload when things are working.
|
|
22
|
Nathan
|
|
23
|
- WNPP Talk
|
|
24
|
- Sameer: PionLT can access GPDs?
|
|
25
|
- Nathan: The scaling study can be used to extract GPDs, but it requires help of theorists
|
|
26
|
- Tanja: Because non-expert audience, are the luminosity studies at the right level?
|
|
27
|
- Nathan: Because the LT separation requires two beam settings, the goal is to emphasize that these studies are very important to understand in order to get the end separation.
|
|
28
|
- There is some debate if luminosity/boiling/rate dependence should be talked about as the same thing or point out the subtle differences.
|
|
29
|
- Dave: Luminosity is a study of the target (i.e., boiling) and any rate dependence is a property of the instrumentation. More just a pedantic point for clarity, beyond the scope of the talk.
|
|
30
|
- Consensus: Its important to not confuse the audience. These are all part of the same set of studies, umbrella luminosity studies/analysis, but emphasize the underlying target results (e.g., boiling correction).
|
|
31
|
Alicia
|
|
32
|
- WNPP Talk
|
|
33
|
- Tanja: Maybe a good idea to tie the talks together a bit better.
|
|
34
|
- Alicia: Backup slide with the full connective tissue between her and Nathan.
|
|
35
|
Junaid
|
|
36
|
- WNPP Talk
|
|
37
|
- Agreed there is too much for a 5 minute talk
|
|
38
|
- Too much technical details that results may get no time
|
|
39
|
- Dave: Yield calculations slide and diamond region selection is not central to this talk. A bullet or two may be good enough.
|
|
40
|
- Tanja: Procedure of extracting cross sections also may be too much. A bullet may be good enough.
|
|
41
|
- Richard: Zoom into ratios (like phi slide) and just add a quick overview of yields, efficiencies, etc.
|
|
42
|
- Junaid: Iteration procedure will be trimmed up (e.g., diamond region selection to backup). Move the yield calculations to backup and use Richard's idea.
|
|
43
|
---
|
|
44
|
February 6th, 2026
|
|
45
|
|
|
46
|
Today: KaonLT will be discussed first
|
|
47
|
|
|
48
|
Present
|
|
49
|
---
|
|
50
|
Regina - Muhammad Junaid, Alicia Postum, Nathan Heinrich, Nermin Sadoun, Vijay Kumar
|
|
51
|
CUA - Chi Kin Tam
|
|
52
|
Virginia - Richard Trotta
|
|
53
|
Jlab- Dave Gaskell
|
|
54
|
FIU - Pete Markowitz
|
|
55
|
Glasglow - Kathleen Ramage
|
|
56
|
---
|
|
57
|
Vijay
|
|
58
|
- Verbal update
|
|
59
|
- Model Uncertainty +/- 10% sig, next week update
|
|
60
|
- The overleaf tables were updated with most recent values
|
|
61
|
- After model checks, remaining systematics
|
|
62
|
Nermin
|
|
63
|
- Pi- PID Cuts (Q2=1.6, W=3.08)
|
|
64
|
- Progression of cuts applied from acceptance to CT to detector to RF
|
|
65
|
- MM vs RF for each progressive stage was shown
|
|
66
|
- Nathan: Pointed out that there were two identical "blobs" at the same MM point so the current RF cut would cut out good events.
|
|
67
|
- Junaid: he RF offset needs to be updated for some runs to correct for this, then the "blobs" will overlap at the same RF value and the cut won't subtract good events.
|
|
68
|
- A general discussion about how there will always be contamination in calorimeter cuts. It's a balancing act that will take a few adjustments. The current cuts seem reasonable.
|
|
69
|
- NGC is a bit odd as there are almost no electrons
|
|
70
|
- Possible cause: issue with gas?
|
|
71
|
- Dave suggested no NGC cut until this is figured out
|
|
72
|
- NGC is the most inefficient, this needs further investigation
|
|
73
|
- Nathan suggests also removing RF, similar discussion as last week (i.e., things are clean as is and it is only adding additional correction)
|
|
74
|
- After all PID cuts applied, random subtraction determined and removed.
|
|
75
|
- Refine these cuts a bit then looking at the efficiencies in more detail.
|
|
76
|
Chi Kin+Richard
|
|
77
|
- Comparison of Richard and Kin SIMC Yields show significant differences with a strong phi dependence (no t-dependence) at iteration 0
|
|
78
|
- Richard is using Kin's SIMC file so the bug must be somewhere in forming the SIMC yield.
|
|
79
|
- Dave suggested double checking variables coming out of SIMC to make sure they are consistent
|
|
80
|
- Richard has stripped complexities of code and hard coded things for testing to eliminate those types of bugs. Updates next week on results.
|
|
81
|
- Q2=3.0, W=2.32
|
|
82
|
- There is a clear trend that sigT > sigL. This may be due to the fact that the lowest t bin is still at relatively large momentum transfer (t ≳ 0.4 GeV^2), where longitudinal dominance is no longer expected. This behavior is consistent with Marco’s analysis.
|
|
83
|
- Richard and Kin have proposed two phenomenological functions that interpolate from a pole-dominated contribution in sigL at small t to a form without an explicit pole term as t increases. This is an active discussion, and updated functional forms are expected next week.
|
|
84
|
|
|
85
|
****Due to WNPP, there will only be the Friday meeting at 11 am!****
|
|
86
|
|