Difference between revisions of "NnL analysis meeting-20210331"

From Tritium Experiments Group
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "<font size="5">nnΛ Analysis Meeting </size> =Information= =Agenda= ==Reports== ===B. Pandey=== ===K. Itabashi=== ==S. Nagao==== ===K.N. Suzuki=== ==Discussion==")
 
 
(76 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
<font size="5">nn&Lambda; Analysis Meeting </size>
+
<font size="5"><b>nn&Lambda; Analysis Meeting</b> </font>
  
 
=Information=
 
=Information=
−
=Agenda=
+
* 21:00 - 26:20 March 31, 2021 (JST)
−
==Reports==
+
* Participants: Nue, Liguang, Pete, Joerg, Toshi, Sho, Bishnu, K.N.Suzuki, K. Itabashi, K. Okuyama, T. Akiyama, Y. Toyama +
−
===B. Pandey===
+
* via BlueJeans
−
===K. Itabashi===
+
 
−
==S. Nagao====
+
=Reports=
−
===K.N. Suzuki===
+
==Hampton==
−
==Discussion==
+
===(10 min) Summary by L. Tang===
 +
* Matrix tuning
 +
** Angle resolution is limited due to the hole size. <br> &rarr; &Delta;&theta; = 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 &Lambda;(H), &Sigma;(H), and &Lambda;(T) </li>
 +
<li>Cross section </li>
 +
</ol>
 +
 
 +
===(25 + 10 min) Kyoto analysis by K.N. Suzuki===
 +
* Resolution study by Geant4 simulation
 +
** Angle resolution: &Delta; &theta; = 1.2 mrad in &sigma;
 +
** Missing mass resolution; no strong mass dependence was estimated.
 +
* Systematic error on B<sub>&Lambda;</sub>
 +
* 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=
 +
* What needs to be done / checked ?
 +
** H contamination &rarr; Shape of &Lambda; may be better to be asymmetry to discuss about the &Sigma; bound region.  (&rarr; Hampton)
 +
** Test of single peak inclusion of the Al data for the tuning &rarr; any other peaks grow? (&rarr; Japan)
 +
** Information about the matrix tuning and matrices (which have not been involved Al tuning at all) will be provided to Japanese group (&rarr; Hampton)
 +
 
 +
* Questions to Hampton group
 +
** How to estimate
 +
*** the angular resolutions (&Delta; x' and &Delta y')? &rarr; Hole size
 +
*** QF &Lambda; shape including the &Sigma; ? <br> &rarr; SIMC (<sup>3</sup>He target) + scaling (How much the scaling factor as a function of the binding energy?<br> &rarr; Used the accidental shape. In addition, the result needs to be compared with Kosuke's SIMC simulation ) <br>&rarr; How much the ratio of &Lambda; to &Sigma;?
 +
*** the differential cross sections and their errors (acceptance correction etc.)? &rarr; ratio to QF &Lambda; (assumed to be 400 nb/sr).
 +
 
 +
=References for discussion=
 +
*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)
 +
*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]
 +
**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]
 +
**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]
 +
**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]

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
  • 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

  1. Expected mass resolution
  2. Momentum tuning with Λ(H), Σ(H), and Λ(T)
  3. 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).

References for discussion

Retrieved from "https://wiki.jlab.org/tegwiki/index.php?title=NnL_analysis_meeting-20210331&oldid=3780"