Aug 17/23 PionLT/KaonLT Analysis Meeting Notes ---------------------------------------------- (Notes by GH) 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 - Garth Huber, Nathan Heinrich, Nacer Hamdi, Alicia Postuma, Muhammad Junaid, Vijay Kumar JLab - Dave Gaskell CUA - Richard Trotta CSULA - Konrad Aniol Nathan Updates -------------- HGCer Calib Update - parameter equation in standard.database - changes pushed to GitHub - comparison w/ online HGC plots - NPE distribution goes much higher now, particularly for last runs of experiment, where gain drop was significant - will post slides on calib after final set of runs is completed on ifarm Working on standard.kinematics Junaid Updates -------------- HMS Calorimeter Calib - working on 9.177 GeV (2021) data - marged Nathan's changes - calibrating once a shift now - DG: question on whether it is needed to calibrate this frequently - MJ: sees shifts after 2-3 days, so need fairly often GH: please have a discussion with Nathan, and come up with a plan on how many runs need to be calibrated, and how long do you expect it to take - concerned that MJ will feel stuck working on calibrations for a very long time, so we should see if we can finish by Labor Day, if possible Richard Updates --------------- Changes to mc_shms_hut.f for calorimeter edge cut - it was commented out in RT's version, but NOT commented out in SIMC master - DG: these cuts can be done either in a standalone script, or in SIMC, it's a matter of what you prefer Aerogel tray cuts now implemented in recon_hcana script Implementing HGC hole cut - will discuss this more w/ Ali after he's back Kinematics averaging code is now simpler, replicating old Fortran code - now just taking average kinematics per t-bin Will give an update on Lumi scans status next week Vijay Updates ------------- Confirmed that calorimeter edge cut is NOT commented out in his SIMC Target boiling corrections work in progress - hoping to show some plots next week Alicia Updates -------------- Follow up from Portia's work on piDelta BSA - Portia did not have weighted SIMC plots, adding weights improved things a lot - also a small error in phi conversion between Data & SIMC corrected - No Dummy subtractions yet (but Randoms are subtracted) - Using SIDIS & piDelta MC output for MM-distribution shape - fit to data looks very good (Q2=2.115) - pi+n radiative tail also not yet included - plot including radiative tail shows a significant contribution underneath piDelta peak - Preliminary BSA plot (Center only) - integrated fitted piDelta MC to data - expecting a large systematic uncertainty from the fit - only one t-bin so far, possibly the Q2=2.115 can have two t-bins - DG: HERMES had only one t-bin, but they removed the -t_min region (where asymmetry is small) so that the remaining region had a larger BSA pi+n Binning - Q2=5.5: decided to have 4 t-bins rather than 5 - trying different phi-bin options: 9, 11, 13 bins - DG: should get same asymmetry for all choices of phi-bins, provided there are sufficient bins to fit the asymmetry moments - in general, more bins are better - 13 phi-bins looks good for Q2=5.5 - GH: please make a table of fitting results & errors vs #phi bins, so we can check fit stability and trends - DG: a little worried about the dependence on #phi bins, suggests a MC study to see if there are any issues, such as e.g. if 9 phi-bins are sufficient - Q2=4.4: 5 t-bins seems fine - results with both 13, 15 phi-bins look okay - 13 bins has a bit more wiggles - Q2=3, W=2.32: 7 t-bins - Q2=3, W=3.14: 7 t-bins - this set has very good statistics - Q2=2.115: 8 t-bins - first t-bin has nearly zero asymmetry, very close to -t_min - fit with A,B,C a bit weird, looks reminiscent of a capacitor breakdown plot - NG: there should be a way to tell ROOT the bins have a width, that might get rid of the weird fits - Nacer: has a small function that AP can try BSA Error Analysis - tried to re-derive error equation in S.Diehl's paper - Diehl's eqn seems to be based on the approximation Y+ \sim Y- which leads to Y+^2 + Y-^2 \sim 2Y+Y- - DG confirms this is a common choice in PV experiments - Alicia's formula has no approximations, is exact - approximate formula leads to an under-estimation of errors - difference between exact formula and approximate formula is small in most cases, but the deviation grows for points where the BSA > 0.1 - Diehl BSA < 0.1, so difference not significant for those data - we will use Alicia's formula, since it is more accurate Next Meeting ------------ - Thur Aug 24 @ 16:00 Eastern/14:00 Regina/13:00 Pacific - KaonLT will go first