Minutes of the Extended Analysis Meeting 2006/01/06

From: Michael Kohl (kohlm@mit.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 06 2006 - 00:40:45 EST


Hi,

here are my minutes from today - some stuff to deeply think about!

!!!Just as a reminder: Speakers of yesterday should give brief summaries
    of their results, along with their tasklist of issues that need to be
    resolved for the preparation of papers. !!!

!!!Another reminder: please remember copying your slides to the Blast
    webpage!!!

MK,EG,CC - Recrunch status, update on kinematic corrections
-New lrn recrunch available for 2004 data 7002-13279 and 2005 soon
  Accounts for new Blast field, charge calib, generates DST
-Used wire chamber calib based on Chi's/Aki's fit
-Major discussions on kinematic corrections
-New recrunch shows angle offset of 0.5 degrees vs. old one of 0.2deg
-Need to account for energy loss and internal radiation in reconstruction.
  Recipe: MC for each particle species, run with eloss and/or internal
  radiation turned on/off. Impose realistic resolutions. Reconstruct
  MC, parameterize momentum and angle shifts as a function of the
  reconstructed coordinate. Use these parametrizations for each
  particle species to correct momenta, angles, derived quantities in
  ntuples with known particle ID (note that ID is in general not known at
  crunchtime).
-Internal radiation (aka radiative tail) may lead to a shift of the
  centroid when convoluted with finite resolution (which is very finite
  in Blast).

AS-UNH,CC - p(e,e'p) elastic GEp/GMp analysis update; PRL draft
-Independent analysis consistent with CC's results
-Includes BATs, however large statistical error (somewhat larger than
  predicted with MC, however Blast field at backward angles outside the
  grid is zero)

RF - d(e,e'p)n quasielastic GEp/GMp: status of analysis
-New extraction of GEp/GMp from deuterium beam-vector asymmetry using
  super ratio technique
-Realistic errors, now compatible with CC's errors in ep
  elastic. Final FOM after including 2005 data will be significantly
  higher than for the proton data.

CZ - d(e,e'd) T20 analysis update
-Discussion on spin angle determination. Yield-weighted average spin
  angle based on measured maps differs up to 1.5 degrees from the value
  obtained from T20 analysis (also consistent for ep elastic).
-Is using spin angle map shifted by constant amount such that
  yield-weighted average complies with average angle from asymmetry
  analysis
-Kinematic offset in reconstructed theta_e of 0.2 degrees translates
  into 0.12 degrees offset for the spin angle, does not explain 1.5 degs
-Model dependence of spin angle determination of analysis of order 0.1
  degrees, does not explain it either.
-Possible misalignment of the hall probe?
-Do we need to measure the spin angle map again? Proposed method would
  not use ratio of two measured field amplitudes but measure the angle
  directly with a self-aligning permanent magnet (so done for He3 at
  Jlab), just like a compass, compass orientation needs to be surveyed
-The effect of the BLAST field has been measured already and is very
  small
-Discussion of false asymmetries: Pzz(V+T+) differs from Pzz(V-T+) by
  15% (relative), translates to ~5% systematics, likely impacts ed
  elastic vector asymmetry (Pete!) where asymmetry is sizeable
-2Pzz(T+)=Pzz(T-) cannot be verified
-All other false asymmetries consistent with zero
-Pzz discussion along with theories, with and without Qd
  renormalization. Spread is on the order of 5% when discarding most
  questionable calculations
-World data on A: Mainz and Saclay data differ by 8% in region of interest
-Global fit analysis of GC and GQ a la Abbott; with tensor asymmetries
  normalized to Abbott-3

VZ - d(e,e'n) G_En analysis update
-Only 4 bins in Q2 (the two highest bins now combined)
-Kinematic corrections for neutrons
-Comparison and combination of 2004 and 2005 datasets, ~10% statistical
  error for first and second Q2 bin
-Drastic dependence of GEn extraction on spin angle (12% per degree)
-GEn is the channel with the largest dependence on the spin angle
-Effect of realistic vs. dipole proton form factor on FSI for (e,e'n)?

NM - d(e,e') G_Mn update analysis
-Inclusive MC studies: effect of realistic form factors vs. dipole
-Sensitivity to GEn, spin angle
-Latest extraction of GMn

TS - d(gamma,pn) photodisintegration
-Kinematics and event selection
-Huge background (wide-open trigger for positive-charge + neutral
  events!) can be greatly reduced with cut on coplanarity and by
  contraining photon direction
-Sizeable number of events remaining

DH - Wire chamber calibration and straight track analysis
-Straight track analysis does not support any geometrical offset
  beyond 0.3mm (~1mm was needed to explain kinematic offsets to first
  order)
-New T2D relationship, should be implemented into libBlast and tested
  with hydrogen data (crunching will take only 1 day!)

EG - Wire chamber studies
-Kinematic offsets are dependent on TOF-number (discontinuous!),
  however evaluation is tracking-based only
-possible TOF effects: T0 ... i.e. discontinuity can be generated when
  timing of two TOFs differs
-Suggested to check drift time spectra broken down into TOF numbers
-Determination of kinematic corrections: Results after correction are
  closer to optimum, however a second iteration is needed. Will send
  out renewed version when ready
-Chi's 9thorder vs. Aaron's 6thorder T2D: no significant difference
  -> next, MK will recrunch hydrogen with Chi's 9th order but with old
  Blast field map

CC - Time-of-flight evaluation for proton tracks
-Uses cosmics events to verify/improve TOF time calib as in
  database. Agreement of time calib within 300ps.
-Determine proton momentum and thus Q2 from timed-of-flight, compare
  with Q2 from angles and momenta.
-Best consistency between Q2(TOF) and Q2(angles), worst with
  Q2(p). This confirms that angles are more correct than momenta, and
  in fact, momentum from tracking is not consistent with momentum from
  time-of-flight, i.e. neglected energy loss effect can actually not
  account for this discrepancy ...

+-------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Office: | Home: |
|-------------------------------------|--------------------------|
| Dr. Michael Kohl | Michael Kohl |
| Laboratory for Nuclear Science | 5 Ibbetson Street |
| MIT-Bates Linear Accelerator Center | Somerville, MA 02143 |
| Middleton, MA 01949 | U.S.A. |
| U.S.A. | |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - -|
| Email: kohlm@mit.edu | K.Michael.Kohl@gmx.de |
| Work: +1-617-253-9207 | Home: +1-617-629-3147 |
| Fax: +1-617-253-9599 | Mobile: +1-978-580-4190 |
| http://blast.lns.mit.edu | |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------+



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:32 EST