April 19, 2017, Production & Analysis Working Group

From GlueXWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Meeting Time and Place

The meeting will be on Wednesday April 19, 2017 at 3:00 pm EDT. For those people at Jefferson Lab, the meeting will be in room F226.

Meeting Connections

  1. To join via a Web Browser, go to the page [1] https://bluejeans.com/115815824.
  2. To join via Polycom room system go to the IP Address: (bjn.vc) and enter the meeting ID: 115815824.
  3. To join via phone, use one of the following numbers and the Conference ID: 115815824.
    • US or Canada: +1 408 740 7256 or
    • US or Canada: +1 888 240 2560
  4. More information on connecting to bluejeans is available.

Reconstruction & Analysis Studies Status


  1. Announcements
  2. Collaboration Meeting May 15-17, 2017
  3. Data Production
  4. Analysis Focus
  5. This Week's Studies
  6. Any other studies
  7. Upcoming Study Schedule

This Week's Topics

  • Talks: Summary/overviews only. Detailed discussions should be held in the appropriate working groups.
  • Talks should be limited to 10 + 5 minutes.

Data Production

  1. Monitoring Update --- Thomas Britton
  2. Calibration Update --- Sean Dobbs
  3. Preparing for the last Spring 2016 production launch
  4. Preparing for the first Spring 2017 production launch
  5. Processing Update --- Alex Austregesilo

Analysis Focus: Total Cross Sections

  1. J/Ψ, φ update--- Lubomir
  2. η, ρ, ω, φ --- Simon
  3. φ --- Thomas
  4. ω --- Christiano
  5. Any others?

Studies: Other

Updates on experiment, simulation, and the comparison between the two.

  1. Track / Hit Matching: BCAL, FCAL, TOF, SC --- Paul Mattione, Simon
  2. Efficiencies: TOF, SC
  3. Means & Resolutions (time, energy, dE/dx): Tracking, BCAL, FCAL, SC, TOF
  4. Uncertainties: PID (BCAL, FCAL, TOF, dE/dx), Kinfit (BCAL, FCAL, tracking)
  5. Channel/Analysis Studies: Branching ratios, cross sections, SDMEs, beam asymmetries
  6. Other reconstruction/analysis issues

Data Production Milestones

  1. Fri. April 21 - Finalize calibrations/software for low-rate running. Run final tests.
    • Produce Spring 2016 "gold runs" as soon as alignment is ready
  2. Fri. April 28 - Start production for low-rate running.
  3. Fri. May 5 - Finalize calibrations/software for high-rate running. Run final tests.
  4. Mon. May 8 -- Fri. May 12 (?) - Scicomp tape library down
  5. Fri. May 19 - Start production for high-rate running.

Upcoming Study Schedule

  • Updates on experiment, simulation, and the comparison between the two.
  • Summary/overviews only. Detailed discussions should be held in the appropriate working groups.
  • All talks should be limited to 10 + 5 minutes.

Next Week: Beamline & Triggering

  1. Flux --- Justin
  2. Beam energy --- Beamline Group
  3. Polarization (TPOL & lineshape) --- Beamline Group
  4. Beam Asymmetries --- Alex Austregesilo
  5. Trigger emulation --- Alex Somov
  6. Triggering efficiency --- Alex Somov

Week after next: Hit Efficiencies (i.e. Is the detector working?) Updates on experiment, simulation, and the comparison between the two.

  1. CDC Hit Efficiencies --- Naomi Jarvis
  2. FDC Hit Efficiencies --- Alex Austregesilo
  3. BCAL Hit Efficiencies --- Elton Smith
  4. FCAL Hit Efficiencies --- Jon Zarling

The following week: Alignment & Track/Shower Efficiencies (i.e. Is the reconstruction working?) Updates on experiment, simulation, and the comparison between the two.

  1. Drift chamber alignment --- Mike Staib
  2. Tracking Efficiencies --- Paul Mattione
  3. BCAL Shower Efficiencies --- Elton Smith
  4. FCAL Shower Efficiencies --- Jon Zarling


Data Production

  1. Sean reported that most calibrations for the low-rate runs are finished, the high-rate runs still have some outliers and behavior that is being understood. Since the new drift chamber alignment was added, the biggest schedule drivers are BCAL timing calibrations and the CDC time-to-distance calibrations. Mark D. has tried a few different BCAL ADC timing algorithms, and thinks that he should have new constants added by the end of the week. Higher-level calibrations will then need to be done.
    • Sean also pointed out that comparisons of reconstructed data between simulations performed using hdgeant and hdgeant4 have been started, and pointed to some interesting histograms.
    • There was some discussion of using updated constants determined from the 2017 data with the 2016 data, this may occur depending on the status of various studies.
  2. Alex A. reported that some test jobs with the new alignment were started. Once checks on these were finished, monitoring launches on the 2016 and 2017 data will be performed.
  3. The schedule for production launches was discussed. The 2016 data requires updated CDC calibrations. The 2017 data requires updated BCAL and CDC calibrations. We will revisit the official schedule early next week, but the current outlook is that whatever data is ready first will be first processed.

Analysis Focus: Total Cross Sections

  1. Lubomir showed a first look at 2017 data, and that he is able to get better momentum resolution using just the angles of the recosntructed particles, without doing a full kinematic fit.
  2. Thomas reported progress, but no firm results yet.

Studies: Other

  1. Mike S. showed the current status of his alignment studies - the code and constants had been made publically available the day before
    • The CDC residuals look good after aligning the wire positions and t0's. The time-to-distance relations need to be updated on a run-by-run basis, since they are seen to vary.
    • The FDC cathode alignment looks much improved, but the wires still could use some improvement. Likely an extra degree of freedom is needed.
    • The pull distributions for the p + pi+pi- final state have significantly improved, although they are still not ideal.
    • Mike will finish up his effort on this work soon so that he can finish his thesis.
  2. Nacer showed the current status of his CDC dE/dx studies
    • The ultimate purpose of the studies are to better extract the dE/dx information to be used in particle identification
    • The dE/dx generally has a Landau distribution, with non-gaussian errors, and a typical approach that is used is to define a truncated mean, where hits with large dE/dx are thrown away. The amount of hits to truncate is a parameter that must be optimized.
    • He studied optimizing the truncation for three cases: (1) best resolution; (2) best separation power; (3) lowest mid-identification rate
    • Each of these cases had different preferred values, but they generally are in the range of ~15-35%.
    • So far he has looked at an inclusive sample of tracks, but he next plans to look at exclusive reactions to obtain cleaner samples of events of different types, and to investigate truncating both high and low dE/dx hits.