Difference between revisions of "Tracking-2-23-2023"

From GlueXWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Minutes)
(→‎Scrappy Minutes that will be tidied)
Line 20: Line 20:
  
 
= Scrappy Minutes that will be tidied =
 
= Scrappy Minutes that will be tidied =
−
CDC is ok
+
# Detector status:
−
FDC has a non-critical problem that Lubomir is aware of, he will be back in a few days
+
#* CDC - ok  
 +
#* FDC - non-critical problem that Lubomir is aware of, he will be back in a few days
 +
# Tracking
 +
We looked at the plots from Peter and Alex and shared ideas.  The std dev on each of Peter's ratio plots is about 5%, so the spread in the fall 2018 results is reasonable, and the earlier batches from spring 18 are similar.  We need to look more at the low and high intensity data from spring 17 which differ by ~ 20% in Peter's data and also show differences in Alex's rho SDMEs, the unpolarized SDMEs are likely them most sensitive to the absolute normalization.
 +
The W foil was added to the beamline between the spring and fall 18 runs, so the extra hits from photons before that probably aren't the culprit. 
  
 +
Things we can do:
  
−
Tracking
+
##The spring 17 data had a different reconstruction version. Peter will recheck low and high intensity spring 17 data using the REST 4 data.  
−
Peter's plots.
+
##The CDC straw efficiency is modelled as 1/0, but could use floats. Naomi will make a CCDB variation with per straw efficiencies from s17 as floats, share w Peter & Alex.  
−
 
+
##Naomi will compare overall hit efficiency vs DOCA and pedestal widths from high & low intensity runs in spring 17.
−
 
+
##Monitoring launch over bggen for different run periods might reveal something useful.  Last did this a long time ago. Worth revisiting w new samples. Alex will do this.
−
std dev on plots is about 5%
+
##Maybe the CDC HVB currents can tell us something useful about the background hits.
−
 
+
##Sean: tag and probe eff study for delta ++  would be helpful.  Jon might have a MC config file.
−
fall 2018 is within that
+
##2017 trees with looser PID timing cuts could be useful - need a new analysis launch (start w high intensity 17)
−
last 2 batches of sp 18 arent
+
##Naomi: We need to look at the QF codes from the timing algo for the recent very high intensity runs, we might be able to do some bad-hit recovery.  
−
2017 low/hi looks dramatically significant
+
−
 
+
−
Alex's old plot shows diffs, wasn't split into l/h
+
−
sdmes l/h 17 show sig diffs in unpol sdmes
+
−
most likely to be affected by abs norm.
+
−
 
+
−
looks like sim is not perfect.
+
−
 
+
−
AA proposes to include this as systematic.
+
−
 
+
−
 
+
−
 
+
−
hit efficiency for cdc is modelled as 1/0
+
−
can we see the difference w beam current
+
−
 
+
−
 
+
−
 
+
−
W foil added before 42228  between spring and fall 18.
+
−
 
+
−
so maybe that's not a clue. 
+
−
 
+
−
 
+
−
spring 17 had a different reconstruction version
+
−
   
+
−
Peter will compare hi & low intensity for rest v4.
+
−
 
+
−
 
+
−
what about efficiency with straw number.
+
−
 
+
−
compare overall and indiv. straw eff for spring and fall 17.
+
−
 
+
−
naomi will make a ccdb with the straw eff built in, give to Peter & Alex for xsections.
+
−
 
+
−
 
+
−
find out what the cdc hvb currents were in spring 17.  compare to recent data
+
−
if hvbi spring 17 ~ hvb recent then would tell us if randoms are approximating noise with and wo W foil.
+
−
 
+
−
 
+
−
Sean: tag and probe eff study for delta ++  would be helpful.  Idk who could do this.  Jon might have a MC config file.
+
−
2017 trees with looser PID timing cuts could be useful - need a new analysis launch (start w high intensity 17)
+
−
 
+
−
 
+
−
Monitoring launch over bggen for diff run periods might reveal something useful.  Last did this a long time ago. Worth revisiting w new samples. 
+
−
Alex will do this.
+
−
 
+
−
 
+
−
 
+
−
Pedestal width.  Could look at sigma for diff run periods. 
+
−
 
+
−
 
+
−
 
+
−
We need to look at the QF codes from the timing algo for the recent very high intensity runs, we might be able to do some bad-hit recovery.
+
−
This is interesting but not immediately urgent. 
+
  
  

Revision as of 11:03, 24 February 2023

  1. meeting link to zoomgov
  2. meeting page

Thu 2/23/2023 2pm

Agenda

  1. Detector status:
    • CDC
    • FDC
    • GEM-TRD
  2. Tracking
    • Differences between run periods
      • Ratios of {\frac {d\sigma }{dM}} for pK^{{-}}K^{{+}} production for the different beam times and batches. Ratios are always taken with respect to full 2018-08 data.File:L1520 cs ratios.pdf
      • Same ratios vs beam current * radiator thickness
        xs/xs(fall 2018) vs nA.um
      • Alex's rho xs update, dependence on beam current in 2017 SDMEs
        Rho SDME 2017-01 beam current.png
      • Thoughts:
        1. Run monitoring histograms (CDC_Efficiency, CDC_dedx what else?) over bggen
        2. Are the random triggers enough to simulate the extra DC hits (from photons) in 2017 before the W foil was added? We might be able to identify these from integral/amplitude.
        3. For the higher intensity runs we might be able to use the quality codes from the timing algo, it identifies pulses w too high pedestal.
        4. What is already in the MC, that we aren't using properly? Pedestal width? Straw efficiency?
  3. AOB

Scrappy Minutes that will be tidied

  1. Detector status:
    • CDC - ok
    • FDC - non-critical problem that Lubomir is aware of, he will be back in a few days
  2. Tracking

We looked at the plots from Peter and Alex and shared ideas. The std dev on each of Peter's ratio plots is about 5%, so the spread in the fall 2018 results is reasonable, and the earlier batches from spring 18 are similar. We need to look more at the low and high intensity data from spring 17 which differ by ~ 20% in Peter's data and also show differences in Alex's rho SDMEs, the unpolarized SDMEs are likely them most sensitive to the absolute normalization. The W foil was added to the beamline between the spring and fall 18 runs, so the extra hits from photons before that probably aren't the culprit.

Things we can do:

    1. The spring 17 data had a different reconstruction version. Peter will recheck low and high intensity spring 17 data using the REST 4 data.
    2. The CDC straw efficiency is modelled as 1/0, but could use floats. Naomi will make a CCDB variation with per straw efficiencies from s17 as floats, share w Peter & Alex.
    3. Naomi will compare overall hit efficiency vs DOCA and pedestal widths from high & low intensity runs in spring 17.
    4. Monitoring launch over bggen for different run periods might reveal something useful. Last did this a long time ago. Worth revisiting w new samples. Alex will do this.
    5. Maybe the CDC HVB currents can tell us something useful about the background hits.
    6. Sean: tag and probe eff study for delta ++ would be helpful. Jon might have a MC config file.
    7. 2017 trees with looser PID timing cuts could be useful - need a new analysis launch (start w high intensity 17)
    8. Naomi: We need to look at the QF codes from the timing algo for the recent very high intensity runs, we might be able to do some bad-hit recovery.










naomi can try to make xs plots for phi.



could we cut off cdc data after 100ns? **** forgot to mention this. but this would be a good but drastic way to eliminate CDC bad gas issues sp 18

Retrieved from "https://halldweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Tracking-2-23-2023&oldid=119375"