Feb 23/23 PionLT/KaonLT Analysis Meeting Notes ---------------------------------------------- (Notes by GH and SJDK) Today: PionLT will be discussed first Please remember to post your slides at: https://redmine.jlab.org/projects/kltexp/wiki/Kaon_LT_Meetings Present ------- Regina - Stephen Kay, Garth Huber, Ali Usman, Alicia Postuma, Nathan Heinrich, Vijay Kumar, Love Preet, Muhammad Junaid JLab - Dave Gaskell Ohio - Jacob Murphy, Julie Roche CUA - Tanja Horn Dave G Updates (on behalf of Richard) -------------- EM/PM calculations - Met with with Richard on implementing post-SIMC script - Found a few bugs and things that needed to be adjusted - Once meeting was done, seemed to be working ok - Some distributions were looking a bit weird, but seemed to be resolved, particular for EM - don't know yet on how well the new SIMC calculations reproduce data Nathan Updates -------------- Ref/Det time cuts - Tested on some settings with online analysis scripts - continuing on LD- setting that got less events than online analysis - Checked cuts, all looked ok - reran online scripts with identical cuts to new analysis with exception of Ref Time - New cuts reduce # events in LD- Q2=3.85, W=2.62, low eps setting by ~20% - Other settings don't see the same effect though, get more after updating ref/det time cuts - For LD- Q2=3.85, W=2.62, center, hi eps the #counts goes up slightly - For LH+ runs checked, the events also go up - For LD- setting with reduction, seems uniform across all plots, see similar drop for all types of events - prompt/random - NH thinks it could be due to a PID detector calibration shift with new cuts, and the proportion of good events passing cut has gone down, would need recalibration and adjustment of cuts to be sure - SK: Should investigate quickly to see if it's a uniform reduction or one particular run/set of runs causing weird issues - Setting was in two parts, separated by several days (i.e. we came back to get more statistics after completing other parts of run plan) - GH: Should absolutely compare each part before/after applying new det/ref cuts - Split the 74 runs in this setting into batches? - Day by day? OR Shift by shift? - need enough statistics in each batch to be able to draw conclusions - in fact, for *all* settings divided into multiple parts by time, the parts need to be looked at separately, and only combined after we are sure everything is consistent - this includes all detector calibrations, etc - *** this study can be done in parallel with detector calibrations, but *** it is essential that we understand what is going on with this LD- *** setting, as a 20% effect is huge! Jacob Murphy ------------ - No elastic delta scans yet - Recovering from an illness - Working through some old hard coded scripts, getting them going for PionLT Junaid Updates -------------- - Busy with NP course - Midterm next week - No report on calibrations yet Ali Updates ----------- HMS Cal/Cer Efficiency - HeeP Singles Studies to get clean sample of electrons - Heep #1 Run 6600 - Ebeam=3.835, Phms=2.835 GeV/c - Cer 97.20%, Cal 99.63% - Much better Cherenkov efficiency - Calorimeter v.good - Heep #2 Run 6603 - Ebeam=3.835, Phms=2.713 GeV/c - Cer 97.31%, Cal 99.64% - Heep #3 Run 6608 - Ebeam=3.835, Phms=2.583 GeV/c - Cer 97.34%, Cal 99.65% - Heep #4 Run 6680 - Ebeam=4.933, Phms=2.583 GeV/c - Cer 97.46%, Cal 99.47% - Heep #5 Run 7852 - Ebeam=6.190, Phms=3.709 GeV/c - Cer 97.12%, Cal 99.37% - Heep #6 Run 7857 - Ebeam=6.190, Phms=3.491 GeV/c - Cer 97.17%, Cal 99.29% - Rate Dependence plot, eff vs rate (S1X) - Cherenkov eff seems to have a fairly slow drop off with rate - Calorimeter has no obvious trend - Not much of a spread in S1X though, ~35 kHz to 70 kHz - Physics rate range is a bit higher, up to 150-200 kHz - DG: considers this study to be ~90% complete 1) would be nice to get a firmer handle on the rate dependence - are there physics data at higher rate with favorable pi-/e-? 2) need to check for dip in HMS Cer efficiency where mirrors overlap - this hasn't been checked yet after the mirror replacement - 1D plot of Cher eff vs X_cer should be sufficient - Cal eff is often parameterized vs Phms, as the energy resolution changes - Cer eff is usually just a fixed number, unless there's a rate dependence, in which case this rate dependence needs to be understood - NH: a *plot* of Cal eff vs. Phms would be useful, maybe this would explain some of the outliers in the rate dependence plot - Next step is to finalise PID - For coin events, pi- background will be removed with CT cuts etc - Should have a fairly clean electron sample with coincidences to find a good efficiency a higher rate Vijay Updates ------------- Phi and t binning in progress, full report next week - Yield calculation per (t,phi) bin - Will have the rest next week hopefully Alicia Updates -------------- - 2nd place in best overall presentation at WNPPC (Winter Nuclear and Particle Physics Conference) in Banff, Alberta - Well done Alicia! - Circulated abstract for CAP - Feedback/comments appreciated - Depending upon word/character limit, maybe clarify "Transition regime" in abstract Next Meeting ------------ Thur Mar 2 @ 17:00 Eastern/16:00 Regina/15:00 Mtn/14:00 Pacific - KaonLT will go first USA savings time starts Mar 12, so we need a poll to find a meeting time. GH will circulate one soon.