sFGD beam test analysis

Wednesday 5 Aug 2020, 16:00 → 18:00 Europe/Zurich

https://fnal.zoom.us/j/257160569

16:00 → 16:20 Data quality check

Speakers: Leonel Lin, Mark D'Souza

16:20 → 16:40 Software update and track fitting status

Speaker: Ciro Riccio (Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II e INFN sezione di Napoli (IT))

Riccio_sfgdmeetingAugust52020.pdf

16:40 → 17:00 Comparison of 0 and 180 configurations

Speaker: Ms Andriaseta Sitraka (South Dakota School of Mines and Technology)

comparisonconfig.pdf

17:00 → 17:10 CERN beam test paper

17:10 → 17:20 CERN beam test analysis update

Speaker: Wilf Shorrock (Imperial College (GB))

17:20 → 17:25 Meeting Minutes

Speaker: Ciro Riccio (Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II e INFN sezione di Napoli (IT))

Attendees: Guang Yang (GY), Ciro Riccio (CR), Shih-Kai Lin (SKL), Abraham Teklu (AT), Eric Chong (EC), Dana Douqa (DD), Perri Zilberman (PZ), David Last (DL), Andriaseta Sitraka (AS), Martin Tzavoz (MT), Chang Kee Jung (CKJ), Wilf Shorrock (WS), David Martinez Caicedo (DMC), Etam Noah (EN), Cristopher Mauger (CM), Rado Fanantenana Razakamiandra (RFR), Rachel Pellegrino (RP), Leonel Lin (LL), Mark D’Souza (MDS)

 

LANL neutron test beam:

 

• Data quality check - Leonel Lin and Mark D'Souza
  • CKJ: For hot channels things are complicated. Good to have a quantitative way to say if a channel. Make sure how much this affect our reconstruction
  • GM: The best way to do it is to try quantifying the impact of hot channels and use this. Use also the simulation to evaluate the impact 
  • DD: What are the "no-beam induced hot channel"? DL: We have observed this during the last day of running and at the end of the detector, for this reason we called them no-beam induced hot channel. 
  • CKJ: How many channels are hot (no-beam induced)? GY: This work has not been finalized yet, so we do not have a number. 
  • DM: Keep track of the run number. GY: it is what they are doing 
• Software update and track fitting status - Ciro Riccio 
  • CK: Slide 9: in this way do you consider the correlations. CR: If we have correlations between systematics uncertainties then we should take them into account.
  • GY: We will have also some MC for validation. 
  • GM: Good that we have different methods to validate the software. 
  • GM: I suggested to have side meetings. Are you organizing them going on? GY: We will invite you.
• Comparison of 0 and 180 configurations - Andriaseta Sitraka
  • CK: Slide 3: what do you mean by “half shutter”? DL: In the middle of a run, if some part of the detector does not function well, we would close the shutter and went in the shed to fix the problem and re-open the shutter.
  • CK: Slide 5: Around 400-500 MeV there is a weird structure. Is this a binning problem? AS: I’ve tested different binning. DL&GY: We do not observe this if we look at the flux. 
  • DL: Slide 6: Are you running over the single run and then you sum them up? AS: Yes.
  • CK: Slide 8: The two runs are very different. Did you compare two runs at 0 degree? GY: Yes, we did. We have compared also runs during the same day and we did not find a big difference. CK: You should check the time dependence of flux. CK: Are you sure about the normalization and the error propagation? DMC: Yes, we have checked that. GY: The flux can change if the upstream experiments changed. We should check with LANL.
  • CK: We have to understand if the differences we see between the different configurations are due to some a detector effect or the flux changed. 
  • GY: We need an independent check and to compare more runs. 
  • DL: Did we compare the temperature between the two runs (dec07 and dec14)? AS: Yes, we do not think this is an issue, but we will investigate this further. GY: We have compared the runs also using the same time and we see similar behavior. 
  • CK: Anyway we should find the same neutron cross-section if we compute it using the different configurations separately.