August 23, 2017, Production & Analysis Working Group

From GlueXWiki
Revision as of 13:28, 29 August 2017 by Zihlmann (Talk | contribs) (Studies: Other)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Meeting Time and Place

The meeting will be on Wednesday August 23, 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]
  2. To join via Polycom room system go to the IP Address: ( 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
  3. Calibration Update --- Sean Dobbs
  4. Simulations Update --- Sean Dobbs

Simulation Reports

15 Minute summaries of progress and future plans on the 2017 mcsmear Workplan.

  1. August 23
    1. FCAL - Matt Shepherd
    2. SC - Mahmoud Kamel
    3. TOF - Beni Zihlmann

Analysis Focus: Total Cross Sections, Acceptance Corrections

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

Studies: Other

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

  1. Trigger emulation --- Alex Somov
  2. FCAL Shower Efficiencies --- Jon Zarling
  3. Track / Hit Matching: BCAL, FCAL, TOF, SC --- Paul Mattione, Simon
  4. Efficiencies: TOF, SC --- Beni, Mahmoud
  5. Means & Resolutions (time, energy, dE/dx): Tracking, BCAL, FCAL, SC, TOF
  6. Uncertainties: PID (BCAL, FCAL, TOF, dE/dx), Kinfit (BCAL, FCAL, tracking)
  7. Channel/Analysis Studies: Branching ratios, cross sections, SDMEs, beam asymmetries
  8. All neutral events with no charged tracks Beni
  9. Other reconstruction/analysis issues

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

The week after next: Hit Efficiencies & Triggering (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 detector working?) Updates on experiment, simulation, and the comparison between the two.

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


Data Production

  1. Monitoring Update --- Still good.
  2. Processing Update --- Alex A. wasn't here - Sean mentioned that the second half of the analysis launch on the 2017 data had finished and the results were available. It will be very valuable to have comparisons between the low-rate and high-rate 2017 data, even at the level of event rates.
  3. Simulations Update --- Sean reported that a second mini-launch had been performed with updated simulations and conditions for 2016 & 2017 data. Currently, he is working on checking the new trigger simulation code and making some changes under the hood. He plans to add in fADC pulse peak information to the simulation HDDM output format in a way that does not break backward compatibility.
    • Mark I. has provided pre-built versions of the mcsmear development branches and has sent emails to the Offline list describing them.

Simulation Reports

  1. Matt Shepherd gave an update on FCAL plans
    • A student is working on obtaining the block-level efficiencies in 50-run chunks from the FCAL LED data, and expects to have these within 2 weeks.
    • The ad-hoc energy resolution smearing needs to be updated. Likely the next input will be from Mark D.'s studies of eta decays, which he'll be able to take back up in 2 weeks.
      • Note that the measured energy resolution in data is worse than design, especially at high energy, so we can expect some improvement.
    • Recent studies indicate that interactions in the light guide need to be taken into account, this is in progress.
    • The time smearing needs to be updated - currently a Gaussian of 400 ps is used, plan to compare data and simulation, also may move soon to an updated timing algorithm.
    • Elton noticed the structure around the beam hole in the shower X-Y distribution in the first slide, is this due to the trigger? Matt: Need to look at simulations, more studies.
    • Justin: Could poor calibration of the blocks near the beam line cause inefficiencies? Matt: Possible, will look at other possible causes first.
  2. Mahmoud Kamel gave an update on Start Counter plans
    • Hit efficiencies are found to be much higher in the latest simulations compared to data.
      • Sean: were backgrounds included in these simulations? Mahmoud: No, need to look at these next.
      • Where do the hits at ~ -8 ns come from? Sean: Suspect background hits matched to a track when the correct hit is lost, bad propagation time corrections give this distribution. Simulations with backgrounds should show this effect
    • Time resolutions are obtained and found to vary as a function of z, increase dramatically in the nose (from ~300 ps -> ~200 ps).
      • This is as expected due to the larger pulses in the nose. Need to decide how to handle this in simulation.
  3. Beni Zihlmann gave an update on TOF plans
    • Hit timing is currently smeared by a single value, determined by paddle resolution (105 ps for 2017 data)
    • Track/hit matching distance has good agreement between data and MC
    • If he looks at efficiency for tracks with p > 1 GeV/c, data and MC are similar away from the beam hole. Near the beam hole, there is a stronger dip near the beam hole in data than in MC.
      • Beni plans to compare the results for low and high intensity running
      • Elton: Is there an effect due to trigger bias? Beni: No, to first order, needs to look at it though (e.g. using BCAL-only triggered events)

Analysis Focus: Total Cross Sections, Acceptance Corrections

  1. Lubomir is now running over all of the 2016 data.
  2. Simon is working with the 2017 low-intensity data, has phi yields, working on simulations to determine efficiency. Currently has jobs running on the high intensity data.
  3. Thomas overcame his software challenges, ran over all 2017 data, and is working on obtaining cross section results.