June 14, 2017, Production & Analysis Working Group

From GlueXWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Meeting Time and Place

The meeting will be on Wednesday June 14, 2017 at 2:00 pm EDT. For those people at Jefferson Lab, the meeting will be in room F326.

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. Data Production
  3. Analysis Focus
  4. This Week's Studies
  5. Any other studies
  6. 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. Calibration Update --- Sean Dobbs
  2. Monitoring Update --- Thomas Britton
  3. 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 --- Cristiano
  5. Any others?

Studies: 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

Naomi - Geant comparison

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: 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 --- Beni, Mahmoud
  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

Week after next: 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

The following week: 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


Data Production

  1. Sean presented updates on the calibrations
    • Low-rate running calibrations have been finalized and production started; high-rate data waiting on some final FCAL and TAGM calibrations
    • Reminded all to not cut too tightly on the data. Several calibration improvements are in the works.
    • Will update automated calibrations this summer, add more, study dependences between calibrations and variations during the run.
    • Beni: Should add links to the code used for calibrations on the wiki page. More documentation before the next run is needed.
    • Updating simulations is now a major focus, since they are needed for analyses.
  2. Thomas: Reconstruction monitoring hasn't worked since latest CC update. Otherwise, everything looks fine.
  3. Alex A. is at Indiana workshop, said that production of 2016 and corresponding analysis launch are finished. Data production was started Monday evening, current ~10% done with low-rate data. This projects to roughly ~40 days needed to reconstruct Spring 2017 data.
    • Paul asked Sean and Mark I. about plans for a simulation launch. This launched a lot of discussion.
    • Sean: Crucial issues are getting GlueX software working on OSG again (much progress by Richard J.) and matching MC smearing to data (less progress).
    • Eugene: People should focus on matching simulation to data in order that we can deliver physics results. We likely need more manpower on this.
    • Richard: hdgeant4 is still in bug-fix mode, comparisons of hdgeant and hdgeant4 can be covered in the offline software meeting.
    • Most of the work in data/MC matching goes into mcsmear. Sean will organize discussions of this as part of this meeting and present a timeline for this work next meeting. We should aim for some time before the next run [Sept./Oct.].

Analysis Focus: Total Cross Sections

  1. Lubomir showed several updates with the new reconstruction of the 2016 data.
    • He sees ~20% more J/psi, with somewhat worse resolution and more low-mass background. He also sees ~50% more phi's.
      • Justin pointed out that a chi^2 cut is being used in this analysis, and this distribution significantly changed in the last production
    • The recoil proton-only analysis looks worse.
    • He also looked at rejecting backgrounds due to target excitations. This doesn't affect J/psi much, but can help backgrounds in the continuum region.
  2. Simon is looking at the t-dependence of his cross sections as a function of beam energy.
  3. Thomas is looking at the new version of the 2016 reconstructed data.

Studies: Alignment & Track/Shower Efficiencies

  1. Alignment: Thomas reported that with the new alignment, he is not seeing some of the track asymmetries that he was previously seeing.
  2. Paul has been on vacation and is currently focused on preparing for the next analysis launch.
  3. Jon is at the Indiana workshop.

Data/Simulation Matching

Naomi presented some results.

  1. The first comparison was between hdgeant4 with and without beam simulations. As expected, there is not much difference, though more statistics are needed for a good comparison.
  2. She then showed a thorough comparison between data, hdgeant, and hdgeant4. Note that the noise level is much higher in data.
  3. The charge integral peak position in simulation and data doesn't match well - this is worrisome, since that is what is used to calibrate the CDC energy scale.
    • Elton suggested there could be a mismatch between the pulse peak and pulse integral values. Naomi: I actually use the peak for calibrations. Unfortunately, hdgeant only gives an integral.
  4. hdgeant4 has a better timing distribution
    • Richard: the hdgeant timing distribution has the long-time behavior for technical reasons
    • Naomi: should we update the time-to-distance relation? Sean: we should coordinate this offline
    • Naomi: should we add in sag effects, etc... Sean: we can make any changes needed in mcsmear, however the primary goal is to get the efficiencies and dE/dx correct, not to simulate the detector accurately in all microscopic details.
  5. The second comparison was various histograms from monitoring_hists
    • Beni asked about SC and TOF hits.
    • Generally it was agreed that there should be a renewed focus on the FDC simulation, since something odd is going on with it.