February 5th, 2026 Today: PionLT will be discussed first Present --- Regina - Muhammad Junaid, Alicia Postum, Nathan Heinrich, Abdenacer Hamdi CUA - Tanja Horn, Sameer Jain, Chi Kin Tam Virginia - Richard Trotta Jlab- Dave Gaskell CSULA - Konrad Aniol Ohio - Julie Roche --- Alicia - Proton/Omega PID (Data vs SIMC) plots look a bit odd - There was some confusion on variable naming conventions so Alicia will fix these Sameer - Some questions on event type - Nathan provided some explanations on how the DAQ records information coming in from the trigger - (Prescaled) Singles events may be blocked but (no PS) coin events are kept - Sameer has a document on coinblock studies but can't upload due to issues with DocDB. He will upload when things are working. Nathan - WNPP Talk - Sameer: PionLT can access GPDs? - Nathan: The scaling study can be used to extract GPDs, but it requires help of theorists - Tanja: Because non-expert audience, are the luminosity studies at the right level? - 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. - There is some debate if luminosity/boiling/rate dependence should be talked about as the same thing or point out the subtle differences. - 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. - 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). Alicia - WNPP Talk - Tanja: Maybe a good idea to tie the talks together a bit better. - Alicia: Backup slide with the full connective tissue between her and Nathan. Junaid - WNPP Talk - Agreed there is too much for a 5 minute talk - Too much technical details that results may get no time - Dave: Yield calculations slide and diamond region selection is not central to this talk. A bullet or two may be good enough. - Tanja: Procedure of extracting cross sections also may be too much. A bullet may be good enough. - Richard: Zoom into ratios (like phi slide) and just add a quick overview of yields, efficiencies, etc. - 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. --- February 6th, 2026 Today: KaonLT will be discussed first Present --- Regina - Muhammad Junaid, Alicia Postum, Nathan Heinrich, Nermin Sadoun, Vijay Kumar CUA - Chi Kin Tam Virginia - Richard Trotta Jlab- Dave Gaskell FIU - Pete Markowitz Glasglow - Kathleen Ramage --- Vijay - Verbal update - Model Uncertainty +/- 10% sig, next week update - The overleaf tables were updated with most recent values - After model checks, remaining systematics Nermin - Pi- PID Cuts (Q2=1.6, W=3.08) - Progression of cuts applied from acceptance to CT to detector to RF - MM vs RF for each progressive stage was shown - Nathan: Pointed out that there were two identical "blobs" at the same MM point so the current RF cut would cut out good events. - 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. - 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. - NGC is a bit odd as there are almost no electrons - Possible cause: issue with gas? - Dave suggested no NGC cut until this is figured out - NGC is the most inefficient, this needs further investigation - Nathan suggests also removing RF, similar discussion as last week (i.e., things are clean as is and it is only adding additional correction) - After all PID cuts applied, random subtraction determined and removed. - Refine these cuts a bit then looking at the efficiencies in more detail. Chi Kin+Richard - Comparison of Richard and Kin SIMC Yields show significant differences with a strong phi dependence (no t-dependence) at iteration 0 - Richard is using Kin's SIMC file so the bug must be somewhere in forming the SIMC yield. - Dave suggested double checking variables coming out of SIMC to make sure they are consistent - Richard has stripped complexities of code and hard coded things for testing to eliminate those types of bugs. Updates next week on results. - Q2=3.0, W=2.32 - 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. - 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. ****Due to WNPP, there will only be the Friday meeting at 11 am!****