June 28, 2017, Production & Analysis Working Group

From GlueXWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Meeting Time and Place

The meeting will be on Wednesday June 28, 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. Monitoring Update --- Thomas Britton
  2. Processing Update --- Alex Austregesilo
    • 2017-01 ver01 batch01: runs 30274 - 30795, currently at 75% after 16 days
    • 2017-01 ver01 batch02: runs 30796 - 31057, start this Friday
  3. Calibration Update --- Sean Dobbs
  4. Simulations Update --- Sean Dobbs

Analysis Focus: Total Cross Sections

  1. J/Ψ, φ dEdx issues--- Lubomir
  2. η, ρ, ω, φ --- Simon
  3. φ Phi Update--- Thomas
  4. ω --- Cristiano
  5. Any others?

Studies: Beamline & Triggering

  1. Flux --- Justin Spring 2016 Update
  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

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: 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

Week after next: 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

The following 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


Data Production

  • The reconstruction tests are now running again, after having been moved to a new machine, but the jobs keep crashing. Paul will try to fix them soon.
  • Spring 2017 low-intensity reconstruction is at 75%
  • Calibrations for the high-intensity running are done, although Elton & Mark think they may have a sign error in the BCAL attenuation factor code, that may have a 2nd-order effect on the reconstruction. If that's the case, and it can be fixed very quickly, we'll include the changes before the high-intensity reconstruction launch. Otherwise it will have to wait for next time.

Simulation Studies

  • Names have been assigned for most of the various simulation studies
  • Naomi looked at the time and integrated charge distributions between experiment, geant3, & geant4. Thanks to Naomi, the time distro largely agrees between experiment & geant4, although there are still some differences in the charge distribution. The exact procedure for the charge will depend on what is done about the theta-dependent dE/dx, as Lubomir discussed.

Cross Sections

  • Lubomir showed that the reconstructed dE/dx for tracks in the CDC has a strong theta-dependence, related to the angle that the track is passing through the straw, and the spatial range over which the charge is accumulating on the wires (all in one spot at 90 degrees, spread over some distance at lower angles). This means that a correction factor to the dE/dx needs to applied during the reconstruction. The details of this will be discussed at the next tracking meeting.
  • Thomas compared the phi cross sections for various final states against each other for the Spring 2016 data. Black, red, and blue are all with recon launch v3, green yields are from recon launch v4, but the green MC is from the recon launch v3 software. Thomas will next look at the recon launch v4 MC, and see how it effects his v4 cross section measurements.

Beam Studies

  • Justin showed the status of the Spring 2016 PS-tagged flux estimate. Using the same analysis cuts as in the paper, he measured the pi0 total cross section. The total cross section seems to be slightly systematically higher for PERP than for PARA or AMO, and significantly lower than the JPAC predictions. Justin will next look at the t-dependence of the cross section.
  • Apparently(?) the beam energy corrections for the Spring 2017 data were calculated and included in the database prior to the reconstruction launch.
  • Alex A. compared his rho beam asymmetry measurement between the different Spring 2016 reconstruction launches. We have been increasingly getting significantly more statistics, although the t-distribution of the recoil proton now looks funny at low-t. There is still some periodic (30-degree) inefficiency in the ψ angle, which may be due to the physical structure of the FDCs (cathode planes or wire planes). This will discussed in more detail at the next tracking meeting.
  • Alex S. plans to have significant progress on the trigger simulation in a month, by the next time this comes up at the meeting.