Difference between revisions of "TransverseAnalysisMeeting June 9 2020"

From PREX Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Agenda)
(Agenda)
 
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
== Agenda ==
 
== Agenda ==
# CREX AT runs update: Weibin & Robert [http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/4130]
+
# CREX AT runs update: Weibin & Robert [http://ace.phys.virginia.edu/HAPPEX/4130 haplog4130]
 
#* WZ: The dithering and regression results are quite different if you take into account the fact they are the same dataset
 
#* WZ: The dithering and regression results are quite different if you take into account the fact they are the same dataset
 
#* CG: check the dithering parameters that were used
 
#* CG: check the dithering parameters that were used

Latest revision as of 16:05, 9 June 2020

Back to Main Page >> Transverse Analysis Meetings

previous meeting << >> next meeting

Logistic information

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

Agenda

  1. CREX AT runs update: Weibin & Robert haplog4130
    • WZ: The dithering and regression results are quite different if you take into account the fact they are the same dataset
    • CG: check the dithering parameters that were used
    • DA: in the dithering outputs the last minirun in PREX is causing extra outliers. Could there be something like that happening for CREX? CC: this particular issue if not a problem for CREX (we changed how things are analyzed).
    • WZ: for the C the differences are smaller
    • KK: for the Ca48 the error bars being different is something we need to investigate.
    • CC: the beam tune during AT stayed the same when we went back to longitudinal
    1. Mul-plots:
    • Carbon: WZ: outlier for BCM start at ~3sigma. KK: expand the x axis so that we see what tails we have and that they are symmetric; WZ: looks fine
    • Ca40: WZ: looks fine. KK: again we need to see the 10 sigma (increase the x axis)
    • Ca48: WZ: for the dithering results we need to be more careful (outliers appear)
    • Pb208: WZ: the "peak" in the raw USL, USR is in 6366. SR: this is a bad run and at least for part of it the HV on the quartz is wrong. DA: it looks like there is some data that is ok (4k patterns).
  2. PREX2 AT runs update: Ryan haplog4129
    • RyR: for Ca we ran a 2x2 raster. For Pb/C 4x6
    • RyR: the new FF calculation is more consistent with the width estimate. KK: for PREX the energy slope will be more important. We can talk ofline about how to refine the prediction. DA: this is consistent with my analysis. KK: we should be able to make a C correction based on this analysis.
  3. Dithering for PREX: Cameron and Ryan
    • CC: we used the wrong slopes so the correction showed bad results. Fixed now. It looks better.
    • DA: the run-wise plots are in the haplog and they look ok.
    • CC: for slug 505 we may be hitting the frame. We need to investigate further. Before 4123 we moved the beam and it looks like we were hitting the frame during 4120 and 4121
  4. PREX1 AT systematics summary: Ciprian Bob's original haplog2594
    • first thing next time
    1. Beam False Asymmetries
    2. Qsq differences
    3. HRS L/R differences
    4. Carbon subtration from Pb
    5. Polarization direction (magnitude and direction)
    6. Sign of asymmetry
    7. Theory predictions
    8. Energy fluctuations
    9. Detector stability

Present

Sakib R, Dustin M, Ryan R, Devi A, Weibin Z, Ciprian G, KK, Cameron C, David A