Difference between revisions of "NnL analysis meeting-20210331"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
** | ** | ||
*Kyoto | *Kyoto | ||
− | ** Simple test of matrix tuning by using simulated data [[Media:JLabMeeting 20210324 gogami .pdf|JLabMeeting_20210324_gogami.pdf]] | + | **Mar 03, 2021: Simple test of matrix tuning by using simulated data: [[Media:JLabMeeting 20210324 gogami .pdf|JLabMeeting_20210324_gogami.pdf]] |
− | **Angle resolution (Summary of Suzuki’s study) [https://www-nh.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~gogami/e12-17-003/meeting/analysis/src/nnL_AnalysisNote_20200501_gogami.pdf] | + | **June 18, 2020: Missing mass spectra: [https://www-nh.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~gogami/e12-17-003/meeting/analysis/src/JLabMeeting_20200618_gogami.pdf] |
− | **Missing mass resolution (Fake peak study by Itabashi is found in the last part): [https://www-nh.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~gogami/e12-17-003/meeting/analysis/src/nnL_AnalysisNote_20200421_gogami.pdf] | + | **May 01, 2020: Angle resolution (Summary of Suzuki’s study) [https://www-nh.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~gogami/e12-17-003/meeting/analysis/src/nnL_AnalysisNote_20200501_gogami.pdf] |
− | **Comments on the missing mass resolution: [https://www-nh.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~gogami/e12-17-003/meeting/analysis/src/JLabMeeting_20200424_gogami.pdf] | + | **Apr 21, 2020: Missing mass resolution (Fake peak study by Itabashi is found in the last part): [https://www-nh.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~gogami/e12-17-003/meeting/analysis/src/nnL_AnalysisNote_20200421_gogami.pdf] |
− | **How to treat angle resolution for the intrinsic resolution estimation (here, the worse resolution for angle is used compared to the recent values though): [https://www-nh.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~gogami/e12-17-003/meeting/analysis/src/JLabMeeting_20200416_gogami.pdf] | + | **Apr 24, 2020: Comments on the missing mass resolution: [https://www-nh.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~gogami/e12-17-003/meeting/analysis/src/JLabMeeting_20200424_gogami.pdf] |
− | **The expected resolution, the number of events, items to be reexamined (p. 31, 32): [https://www-nh.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~gogami/e12-17-003/meeting/analysis/src/JLabMeeting_20200313_gogami.pdf] | + | **Apr 16, 2020: How to treat angle resolution for the intrinsic resolution estimation (here, the worse resolution for angle is used compared to the recent values though): [https://www-nh.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~gogami/e12-17-003/meeting/analysis/src/JLabMeeting_20200416_gogami.pdf] |
+ | **Mar 13, 2020: The expected resolution, the number of events, items to be reexamined (p. 31, 32): [https://www-nh.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~gogami/e12-17-003/meeting/analysis/src/JLabMeeting_20200313_gogami.pdf] |
Revision as of 07:27, 26 March 2021
nnΛ Analysis Meeting
Information
- 21:00- March 31, 2021 (JST)
- Participants:
- via BlueJeans
Reports
(25 + 10 min) Hampton analysis by B. Pandey
(15 + 10 min) Tohoku analysis (1) by K. Itabashi
(10 min) Tohoku analysis (2) by S. Nagao
(25 + 10 min) Kyoto analysis by K.N. Suzuki
- Resolution study by Geant4 simulation
- Angle resolution
- Missing mass resolution
- Systematic error on BΛ
- Cross section analysis
Discussion
- What needs to be done / checked for the publication?
References for discussion
- Hampton
- Tohoku
- Kyoto
- Mar 03, 2021: Simple test of matrix tuning by using simulated data: JLabMeeting_20210324_gogami.pdf
- June 18, 2020: Missing mass spectra: [1]
- May 01, 2020: Angle resolution (Summary of Suzuki’s study) [2]
- Apr 21, 2020: Missing mass resolution (Fake peak study by Itabashi is found in the last part): [3]
- Apr 24, 2020: Comments on the missing mass resolution: [4]
- Apr 16, 2020: How to treat angle resolution for the intrinsic resolution estimation (here, the worse resolution for angle is used compared to the recent values though): [5]
- Mar 13, 2020: The expected resolution, the number of events, items to be reexamined (p. 31, 32): [6]