View source for TransverseAnalysisMeeting July 7 2020

Back to [[Main_Page|Main Page]] >> [[PREX/CREX Transverse | Transverse Analysis Meetings]]

[[TransverseAnalysisMeeting_June_30_2020|previous meeting]] <<   >> [[TransverseAnalysisMeeting_July_14_2020|next meeting]]

== Logistic information ==
  BlueJeans calling instructions:
  Bluejeans link: https://bluejeans.com/494002155

== Agenda ==
# Data overview: Ciprian [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZI68PgAn_zySKozZ__kHBvxlBmaTMKw9jPSl-EIa91k/edit?usp=sharing gglSheet]
#* CG: live sheet which shows the current values and extraction calculation for the An
# PREX2 AT runs update: Ryan
#* RyR: respin 2 values are ready.
# CREX AT runs update: Weibin & Robert
#* WZ: there was an error in my last calculation. Fixed now and values are consistent between minirun and multiplet values
#* WZ: A couple differences remain
#* WZ: Ca40: minirun average vs multiplet average shows some central value difference, but that is due most likely to the fit (the mul-plots are fit results). KK: we should think about if these differences are reasonable considering the different weighting
# Q2 data: Ryan
#* KK: we don't need to quote a An-hat; so Q2 will just be the x position for the data point. We can quote just the first digit (second digit will not matter for the plot).
#* RyR: Averages are not weighted
##PREX
##* RyR: for the Q2 uncertainty I used the RMS; The averages 
##* DM: there are not huge differences from recoil energy loss and collisional loss (in the target). We will followup on radiative losses.
##* KK: expected to see Ca40 higher than C1% like it's in the RHRS. The LHRS results are a bit confusing. The difference between C1% and Pb should be easy to calculate.
##CREX:
##* RyR: Pb is slightly larger than Ca. KK: we need to make sure that the ratios are consistent with the radiation lengths (Ca ~6% , Pb ~10%?). DM: the detectors were tuned for Ca/Pb and the other targets may have the elastic peak moved
# Polarimetry results: Weibin
#* PREX MD: we actually had a difference between polarization states (HWP IN/OUT). How are we taking care of that? CG: maybe a large uncertainty 
#* CREX WZ: two values; the second one is a week later (we may want to exclude).  
# Detector non-lineary: Devi & Robert [http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/4170 haplog4170]
#* DA: detailed discussion in a later meeting. For the AT (Pb and Ca) we can use slide 8 numbers in brackets. DM: this is just for the PMTs (we still have the PITA issue that we presented before). KK: for the PITA scan problem we may want to quote a larger systematic error for this result. These results are DDs so the BCM non-linearity drops out.
#* DA: slide 10 -> values for C1%
#* KK: the proposal is to assigne a 0.3% systematic and not make a correction. 
#* DA: for the CREX values I only show the US detectors. Everything is close to 0.
# Target contamination: Robert and Weibin
#* KK: systematic for Ca40 correction is very small due to the values being so close.
0.2% of Ca44 .. should be mentioned
# Signs between different polarimeters/DAQs:
#* RoR: Almost completed analysis of the spin tracking through CEBAF. Will update haplog


== Present ==
Cameron C, Caryn P, David A, Devi A, Paul K, Robert R, Ryan R, Weibin Z, Mark D, Dustin M, Ciprian G, KK

'''Can't make it:'''
Kent P, 
[[Category:Meetings]]
[[Category:AT Meetings]]