sFGD beam test analysis

Name: sFGD beam test analysis
Start: 2021-04-01T16:00:00+02:00
End: 2021-04-01T18:00:00+02:00
Location: No location set

Thursday 1 Apr 2021, 16:00 → 18:00 Europe/Zurich

Description

https://stonybrook.zoom.us/j/7598419716?pwd=QmIyT0hwWkxkVWJwQnhmbDR6NVo1QT09

pass: letmein

- 16:00 → 16:20
  
  Overall analysis status towards the first result 20m
  
  Speaker: Guang Yang (Stony Brook University)
  
  LANL_status_gyang_Mar31_2021(2).pdf
- 16:20 → 16:40
  
  Energy scale uncertainty study 20m
  
  Speaker: Abraham Meles Teklu (Stony Brook University (US))
  
  04_01_21 AT Update.pdf
- 16:40 → 17:00
  
  unpacking issues 20m
  
  Speaker: Dana Douqa (Universite de Geneve (CH))
  
  UnpackingIssues.pdf
- 17:00 → 17:10
  Meeting Minutes 10m
  
  Speaker: Dr Ciro Riccio (Stony Brook University (US))
  Attendees: Guang Yang (GY), Ciro Riccio (CR), Chang Kee Jung (CKJ), Abraham Teklu (AT), Alex Ramirez (AR), Eric Chong (EC), Shih-Kai Lin (SL), Mikhail Danilov (MD), Nataliya Skrobova (NS), Perri Zilberam (PZ), Ki Young Jung (KYJ), Dana Douqa (DD), Christopher Mauger (CM)
  
  Link to indico: https://indico.cern.ch/event/1024684/
  
  Guang Yang - Overall analysis status towards the first result
  
  CKJ: Slide 6: You have energy resolution due to time resolution, while energy scale is a shift in the energy. GY: Yes got that.
  
  CKJ: Slide 8: For presentation purpose change the Y axis range to be 0.4 and 1.2. GY: Will do.
  
  CKJ: Slide 8: Where are the green points? GY: My mistake I didn't remove it from the legend.
  
  CKJ: Slide 10: How do you extract this correction? GY: We remove the invisible scattering using the correction. CR: It is like a background subtraction.
  
  CM: Another approach is to reduce the beam halo having a cylindrical FV. GY: For this study I have a large FV. In addition, having that halo does not really correctly account for the invisible scattering layer-dependent effect.
  
  GY: If you have a large FV you will measure the sum of visible and invisible.
  
  CKJ: Slide 3: efficiency will not gonna be constant. GY: Yes correct.
  
  CM: Another method you can use is keeping that invisible scattering. GY&CM: We will report quote both. CKJ: In the paper we can provide two results but one should be the main one.
  
  CKJ: Slide 12: Do we have enough statistics with this high PE cut? GY: Yes. CKJ: The bigger systematics will come from this. We need to measure the cross-section also with different PE cuts.
  
  CKJ&CM: PRD can be the target journal.
  
  CR: For invisible scattering I'd use more stat and compare with 180degree data. GY: Sure will do.
  
  Abraham Teklu - Energy scale uncertainty study
  
  CKJ: 20 min of data? AT: Yes
  
  CKJ: Make clear that time tick is 2.5 ns.
  
  CKJ: Those are 2019 or 2020 data? AT: 2019
  
  Dana Douqa - Unpacking issues
  
  GY: We didn't changed any hardware then if the software hold time is set to long enough, we should be ok for the first effect.
  
  CJK: Thanks for checking this level of details! Are they using a mixture of low gain, high gain or ToT? GY: We use HG. CKJ: We should use ToT. AT: I understood we are using a mixture. GY: True but we mainly use HG. If that is not available, we use ToT.
  
  CKJ: Slide 12: Why you don't apply this quick fix? DD: The only reason is that I didn't check this carefully. GY: If you can implement your fix and we can check.