July 19, 2017, Production & Analysis Working Group

From GlueXWiki
Revision as of 16:32, 19 July 2017 by Sdobbs (Talk | contribs) (Studies: Alignment & Track/Shower Efficiencies)

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

Meeting Time and Place

The meeting will be on Wednesday July 19, 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: 199.48.152.152 (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

Agenda

  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

Analysis Focus: Total Cross Sections, Acceptance Corrections

  1. J/Ψ, φ --- Lubomir
  2. η, ρ, ω, φ --- Simon
  3. φ ---Update Thomas
  4. ω --- Cristiano
  5. ω --- Mike
  6. 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, Alex Barnes
  2. Tracking Efficiencies --- Paul Mattione, [2] Cris
  3. BCAL Shower Efficiencies --- Elton Smith
  4. 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.

  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

The 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

Minutes

Data Production

  1. Thomas reports that the monitoring looks good.
  2. Alex A. reported that ETA for the last reconstruction jobs was Monday, but network problems in the CC delayed finishing. Additionally, we had hit the pin limit on the cache disk, this was slightly extended to let jobs run again. The batch sits at 80% completion and should take ~3 more days to finish.
  3. Paul reported that the listed decay modes seem to work fine except for a couple modes with multiple pi0's, which he is working on debugging. Then he can run comprehensive tests with all final states running, determine needed job resource limits, etc.
  4. Sean reported that planning continues for the Fall run. He hopes to add more plugins for calibration-related skims. Please send him any suggestions for channels/skims that you'd like to have.
  5. Sean has been running some first "official" simulation batches on JLab and the OSG. The JLab jobs are currently running, having slipped in while the reconstruction jobs were held up. Sean and Richard have been steadily working on OSG issues, and as of after this meeting have a stable environment in which to run. He is currently running some bggen events, and plans to also run an omega sample. He will send an email around when files are available.
    • He also updated the list of mcsmear work to the best of his knowledge - anyone can feel free to update it themselves. We'll plan to have subsystem updates on Aug. 9th and 16th. Sean will contact the relevant parties on scheduling.
    • Mahmoud reported that he is finishing the attenuation corrections and will get to comparing efficiencies after this, likely next week.
    • Beni reported that he took an initial comparison of data/MC efficiencies for TOF points, and had better agreement than expected, with efficiencies around 90%. The main problem is that when you get near the beam hole, the efficiency in data drops by ~15%.

Analysis Focus: Total Cross Sections, Acceptance Corrections

  1. Thomas reported that after fixing his efficiency calculations, he sees better agreement between his phi->K+K- cross sections and the phi -> eta gamma results. He is currently trying to understand some of the unphysical-seem point-to-point variations.
    • He also needs to check the t-slope used in his simulations and add the correct angular distributions to them. Richard pointed out that using realistic SDMEs can give a change of ~30% in acceptance.
  2. Mike is still trying to understand the difference in PARA and PERP SDME results.

Studies: Alignment & Track/Shower Efficiencies

  1. Alex Barnes is picking up the alignment work. The next step to improvement is perhaps to use some narrow resonance decays as mass constraints.
  2. Cris reported some preliminary studies of track efficiencies and resolutions based on Paul M.'s studies. See his slides for details, but generally:
    • He studies the channel gamma p -> 4pi p, looking at missing particle reconstruction to find the pion or proton properties.
    • He generally finds higher efficiencies in data compared to simulation. His hypothesis is that this is due to a bug in the software version used for the simulation not in the one used for data. He is looking into making new simulations.
    • There is also a discrepancy in the resolutions he sees, especially in the forward direction.
    • He has several ideas on how to make progress on this work.
    • Richard asked about the dependency of the results on the kinematic fit chi^2. Paul pointed out that the cut is so strict that the sidebands might not be accurately reflecting the background underneath the peak. Maybe to avoid this problem, cutting on the chi^2 of a vertex-only kinematic fit would be okay.
  3. After accidental and background subtraction, Jon Z. reported that there is progress being made in understanding the FCAL.