Difference between revisions of "NnL analysis meeting-20210331"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(56 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
=Information= | =Information= | ||
− | * 21:00- March 31, 2021 (JST) | + | * 21:00 - 26:20 March 31, 2021 (JST) |
− | * Participants: | + | * Participants: Nue, Liguang, Pete, Joerg, Toshi, Sho, Bishnu, K.N.Suzuki, K. Itabashi, K. Okuyama, T. Akiyama, Y. Toyama + |
* via BlueJeans | * via BlueJeans | ||
=Reports= | =Reports= | ||
− | ==( | + | ==Hampton== |
− | ==( | + | ===(10 min) Summary by L. Tang=== |
− | ==( | + | * Matrix tuning |
− | ==(25 + 10 min) Kyoto analysis by K.N. Suzuki== | + | ** Angle resolution is limited due to the hole size. <br> → Δθ = 3.4 mrad |
+ | * The intrinsic mass resolution | ||
+ | ** Large A dependence because of the large angle contribution. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===(20 + 10 min) Details by B. Pandey=== | ||
+ | Presentation file = <font size="4">[[Media:NNL MArch31 Updated.pdf|NNL_MArch31_Bishnu.pdf]]</font><br> | ||
+ | Supplement (angle that he used) = <font size="4">[[Media:Angle conversion.pdf|Angle_conversion.pdf]]</font> | ||
+ | * Al peaks are involved in the tuning. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Kyoto== | ||
+ | ===(5 min) Japanese Analysis Summary by T. Gogami=== | ||
+ | Presentation file = <font size="4">[[Media:JLabMeeting 20210331 gogami.pdf|JLabMeeting_20210331_gogami.pdf]]</font><br> | ||
+ | Supplement (angle definition) = <font size="4">[[Media:JLabMeeting 20210331 gogami 2.pdf|JLabMeeting_20210331_gogami_2.pdf]]</font> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ol> | ||
+ | <li>Expected mass resolution</li> | ||
+ | <li>Momentum tuning with Λ(H), Σ(H), and Λ(T) </li> | ||
+ | <li>Cross section </li> | ||
+ | </ol> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===(25 + 10 min) Kyoto analysis by K.N. Suzuki=== | ||
* Resolution study by Geant4 simulation | * Resolution study by Geant4 simulation | ||
− | ** Angle resolution | + | ** Angle resolution: Δ θ = 1.2 mrad in σ |
− | ** Missing mass resolution | + | ** Missing mass resolution; no strong mass dependence was estimated. |
* Systematic error on B<sub>Λ</sub> | * Systematic error on B<sub>Λ</sub> | ||
* Cross section analysis | * Cross section analysis | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Tohoku== | ||
+ | ===(10 + 5 min)Tohoku analysis (1) by S. Nagao=== | ||
+ | Presentation file = <font size="4">[https://www-nh.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~gogami/e12-17-003/meeting/analysis/src/nagao20210331_JLab_analysis_meeting.pdf nagao20210331_JLab_analysis_meeting.pdf]</font> | ||
+ | * The intrinsic mass resolution | ||
+ | * Tuning with Al data | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===(20 + 10 min) Tohoku analysis (2) by K. Itabashi=== | ||
+ | * Showed how analyses are different among the analysis groups | ||
+ | * Spectra comparison | ||
=Discussion= | =Discussion= | ||
− | * What needs to be done / checked for the | + | * What needs to be done / checked ? |
− | ** | + | ** H contamination → Shape of Λ may be better to be asymmetry to discuss about the Σ bound region. (→ Hampton) |
− | ** | + | ** Test of single peak inclusion of the Al data for the tuning → any other peaks grow? (→ Japan) |
− | ** | + | ** Information about the matrix tuning and matrices (which have not been involved Al tuning at all) will be provided to Japanese group (→ Hampton) |
+ | |||
+ | * Questions to Hampton group | ||
+ | ** How to estimate | ||
+ | *** the angular resolutions (Δ x' and &Delta y')? → Hole size | ||
+ | *** QF Λ shape including the Σ ? <br> → SIMC (<sup>3</sup>He target) + scaling (How much the scaling factor as a function of the binding energy?<br> → Used the accidental shape. In addition, the result needs to be compared with Kosuke's SIMC simulation ) <br>→ How much the ratio of Λ to Σ? | ||
+ | *** the differential cross sections and their errors (acceptance correction etc.)? → ratio to QF Λ (assumed to be 400 nb/sr). | ||
=References for discussion= | =References for discussion= | ||
− | * Hampton | + | *from Hampton |
− | ** | + | ** [https://www-nh.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~gogami/e12-17-003/meeting/analysis/src/TECHNIQUE_OF_MATRIX_TUNE_Tang2021Mar.pdf TECHNIQUE_OF_MATRIX_TUNE_Tang2021Mar.pdf] (Mar 15, 2021) |
− | ** | + | ** [https://www-nh.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~gogami/e12-17-003/meeting/analysis/src/Resolution_optical_tune_Tang2021Mar.pdf Resolution_optical_tune_Tang2021Mar.pdf] (Mar 15, 2021) |
− | *Tohoku | + | *from Tohoku |
− | * | + | *from Kyoto |
− | + | **Mar 24, 2021: Simple test of matrix tuning by using simulated data: [[Media:JLabMeeting 20210324 gogami .pdf|JLabMeeting_20210324_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 JLabMeeting_20200618_gogami.pdf] | |
− | ** Simple test of matrix tuning by using simulated data [[Media:JLabMeeting 20210324 gogami .pdf|JLabMeeting_20210324_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 nnL_AnalysisNote_20200501_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 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 nnL_AnalysisNote_20200421_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 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 JLabMeeting_20200416_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] | + | **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 JLabMeeting_20200313_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] |
Latest revision as of 20:12, 11 April 2021
nnΛ Analysis Meeting
Information
- 21:00 - 26:20 March 31, 2021 (JST)
- Participants: Nue, Liguang, Pete, Joerg, Toshi, Sho, Bishnu, K.N.Suzuki, K. Itabashi, K. Okuyama, T. Akiyama, Y. Toyama +
- via BlueJeans
Reports
Hampton
(10 min) Summary by L. Tang
- Matrix tuning
- Angle resolution is limited due to the hole size.
→ Δθ = 3.4 mrad
- Angle resolution is limited due to the hole size.
- The intrinsic mass resolution
- Large A dependence because of the large angle contribution.
(20 + 10 min) Details by B. Pandey
Presentation file = NNL_MArch31_Bishnu.pdf
Supplement (angle that he used) = Angle_conversion.pdf
- Al peaks are involved in the tuning.
Kyoto
(5 min) Japanese Analysis Summary by T. Gogami
Presentation file = JLabMeeting_20210331_gogami.pdf
Supplement (angle definition) = JLabMeeting_20210331_gogami_2.pdf
- Expected mass resolution
- Momentum tuning with Λ(H), Σ(H), and Λ(T)
- Cross section
(25 + 10 min) Kyoto analysis by K.N. Suzuki
- Resolution study by Geant4 simulation
- Angle resolution: Δ θ = 1.2 mrad in σ
- Missing mass resolution; no strong mass dependence was estimated.
- Systematic error on BΛ
- Cross section analysis
Tohoku
(10 + 5 min)Tohoku analysis (1) by S. Nagao
Presentation file = nagao20210331_JLab_analysis_meeting.pdf
- The intrinsic mass resolution
- Tuning with Al data
(20 + 10 min) Tohoku analysis (2) by K. Itabashi
- Showed how analyses are different among the analysis groups
- Spectra comparison
Discussion
- What needs to be done / checked ?
- H contamination → Shape of Λ may be better to be asymmetry to discuss about the Σ bound region. (→ Hampton)
- Test of single peak inclusion of the Al data for the tuning → any other peaks grow? (→ Japan)
- Information about the matrix tuning and matrices (which have not been involved Al tuning at all) will be provided to Japanese group (→ Hampton)
- Questions to Hampton group
- How to estimate
- the angular resolutions (Δ x' and &Delta y')? → Hole size
- QF Λ shape including the Σ ?
→ SIMC (3He target) + scaling (How much the scaling factor as a function of the binding energy?
→ Used the accidental shape. In addition, the result needs to be compared with Kosuke's SIMC simulation )
→ How much the ratio of Λ to Σ? - the differential cross sections and their errors (acceptance correction etc.)? → ratio to QF Λ (assumed to be 400 nb/sr).
- How to estimate
References for discussion
- from Hampton
- TECHNIQUE_OF_MATRIX_TUNE_Tang2021Mar.pdf (Mar 15, 2021)
- Resolution_optical_tune_Tang2021Mar.pdf (Mar 15, 2021)
- from Tohoku
- from Kyoto
- Mar 24, 2021: Simple test of matrix tuning by using simulated data: JLabMeeting_20210324_gogami.pdf
- June 18, 2020: Missing mass spectra: JLabMeeting_20200618_gogami.pdf
- May 01, 2020: Angle resolution (Summary of Suzuki’s study): nnL_AnalysisNote_20200501_gogami.pdf
- Apr 24, 2020: Comments on the missing mass resolution: JLabMeeting_20200424_gogami.pdf
- Apr 21, 2020: Missing mass resolution (Fake peak study by Itabashi is found in the last part): nnL_AnalysisNote_20200421_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): JLabMeeting_20200416_gogami.pdf
- Mar 13, 2020: The expected resolution, the number of events, items to be reexamined (p. 31, 32): JLabMeeting_20200313_gogami.pdf