Difference between revisions of "June 14, 2017, Production & Analysis Working Group"
From GlueXWiki
(→Analysis Focus: Total Cross Sections) |
(→Minutes) |
||
(9 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
=== Data Production === | === Data Production === | ||
− | # Calibration Update --- Sean Dobbs | + | # [https://halldweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/f/f3/Production_20170714.pdf Calibration Update] --- Sean Dobbs |
#* [[Calibration_Dashboard#ver01_Recon_Checklist | ver01 Recon Checklist]] | #* [[Calibration_Dashboard#ver01_Recon_Checklist | ver01 Recon Checklist]] | ||
#* [[RunPeriod-2017-01 Reconstruction]] | #* [[RunPeriod-2017-01 Reconstruction]] | ||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
# Monitoring Update --- Thomas Britton | # Monitoring Update --- Thomas Britton | ||
# Processing Update --- Alex Austregesilo | # Processing Update --- Alex Austregesilo | ||
− | #* Status of the last Spring 2016 production launch | + | #* Status of the last Spring 2016 production launch: done for runs <math>\ge</math> 11366 |
− | #* | + | #* Status of the first Spring 2017 production launch: [https://halldweb.jlab.org/data_monitoring/recon/summary_swif_output_recon_2017-01_ver01_batch01.html batch01 started on 06/12/17, almost at 10%] |
=== Analysis Focus: Total Cross Sections === | === Analysis Focus: Total Cross Sections === | ||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
# η, ρ, ω, φ --- Simon | # η, ρ, ω, φ --- Simon | ||
# φ --- Thomas | # φ --- Thomas | ||
− | # ω --- | + | # ω --- Cristiano |
# Any others? | # Any others? | ||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
# BCAL Shower Efficiencies --- Elton Smith | # BCAL Shower Efficiencies --- Elton Smith | ||
# FCAL Shower Efficiencies --- Jon Zarling | # FCAL Shower Efficiencies --- Jon Zarling | ||
+ | [https://halldweb.jlab.org/wiki-private/index.php/File:Naomi_Geantcomp1.pdf Naomi - Geant comparison] | ||
= Upcoming Study Schedule = | = Upcoming Study Schedule = | ||
Line 85: | Line 86: | ||
# BCAL Hit Efficiencies --- Elton Smith | # BCAL Hit Efficiencies --- Elton Smith | ||
# FCAL Hit Efficiencies --- Jon Zarling | # FCAL Hit Efficiencies --- Jon Zarling | ||
+ | |||
+ | = Minutes = | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Data Production === | ||
+ | # 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. | ||
+ | # Thomas: Reconstruction monitoring hasn't worked since latest CC update. Otherwise, everything looks fine. | ||
+ | # 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 === | ||
+ | # 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. | ||
+ | # Simon is looking at the t-dependence of his cross sections as a function of beam energy. | ||
+ | # Thomas is looking at the new version of the 2016 reconstructed data. | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Studies: Alignment & Track/Shower Efficiencies === | ||
+ | # Alignment: Thomas reported that with the new alignment, he is not seeing some of the track asymmetries that he was previously seeing. | ||
+ | # Paul has been on vacation and is currently focused on preparing for the next analysis launch. | ||
+ | # Jon is at the Indiana workshop. | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Data/Simulation Matching === | ||
+ | Naomi presented some results. | ||
+ | # 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. | ||
+ | # She then showed a thorough comparison between data, hdgeant, and hdgeant4. Note that the noise level is much higher in data. | ||
+ | # 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. | ||
+ | # 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. | ||
+ | # 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. |
Latest revision as of 18:37, 14 June 2017
Contents
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
- To join via a Web Browser, go to the page [1] https://bluejeans.com/115815824.
- To join via Polycom room system go to the IP Address: 199.48.152.152 (bjn.vc) and enter the meeting ID: 115815824.
- 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
- More information on connecting to bluejeans is available.
Reconstruction & Analysis Studies Status
Agenda
- Announcements
- Data Production
- Analysis Focus
- This Week's Studies
- Any other studies
- 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
- Calibration Update --- Sean Dobbs
- Monitoring Update --- Thomas Britton
- Processing Update --- Alex Austregesilo
- Status of the last Spring 2016 production launch: done for runs 11366
- Status of the first Spring 2017 production launch: batch01 started on 06/12/17, almost at 10%
Analysis Focus: Total Cross Sections
- J/Ψ, φ update --- Lubomir
- η, ρ, ω, φ --- Simon
- φ --- Thomas
- ω --- Cristiano
- Any others?
Studies: Alignment & Track/Shower Efficiencies
(i.e. Is the reconstruction working?) Updates on experiment, simulation, and the comparison between the two.
- Drift chamber alignment --- Mike Staib
- Tracking Efficiencies --- Paul Mattione
- BCAL Shower Efficiencies --- Elton Smith
- FCAL Shower Efficiencies --- Jon Zarling
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.
- Track / Hit Matching: BCAL, FCAL, TOF, SC --- Paul Mattione, Simon
- Efficiencies: TOF, SC --- Beni, Mahmoud
- Means & Resolutions (time, energy, dE/dx): Tracking, BCAL, FCAL, SC, TOF
- Uncertainties: PID (BCAL, FCAL, TOF, dE/dx), Kinfit (BCAL, FCAL, tracking)
- Channel/Analysis Studies: Branching ratios, cross sections, SDMEs, beam asymmetries
- Other reconstruction/analysis issues
Week after next: Beamline & Triggering
- Flux --- Justin
- Beam energy --- Beamline Group
- Polarization (TPOL & lineshape) --- Beamline Group
- Beam Asymmetries --- Alex Austregesilo
- Trigger emulation --- Alex Somov
- 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.
- CDC Hit Efficiencies --- Naomi Jarvis
- FDC Hit Efficiencies --- Alex Austregesilo
- BCAL Hit Efficiencies --- Elton Smith
- FCAL Hit Efficiencies --- Jon Zarling
Minutes
Data Production
- 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.
- Thomas: Reconstruction monitoring hasn't worked since latest CC update. Otherwise, everything looks fine.
- 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
- 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.
- He sees ~20% more J/psi, with somewhat worse resolution and more low-mass background. He also sees ~50% more phi's.
- Simon is looking at the t-dependence of his cross sections as a function of beam energy.
- Thomas is looking at the new version of the 2016 reconstructed data.
Studies: Alignment & Track/Shower Efficiencies
- Alignment: Thomas reported that with the new alignment, he is not seeing some of the track asymmetries that he was previously seeing.
- Paul has been on vacation and is currently focused on preparing for the next analysis launch.
- Jon is at the Indiana workshop.
Data/Simulation Matching
Naomi presented some results.
- 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.
- She then showed a thorough comparison between data, hdgeant, and hdgeant4. Note that the noise level is much higher in data.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.