Difference between revisions of "G2p Analysis Minutes"

Revision as of 17:50, 29 October 2015 (view source) Melissac (Talk | contribs) (→‎10/14/2015) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 11:57, 29 July 2021 (view source) Druth (Talk | contribs)
(166 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 3:		Line 3:
	[https://hallaweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/G2p_Weekly_Analysis Agenda]		[https://hallaweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/G2p_Weekly_Analysis Agenda]
−	==10/28/2015==
−	Present: JP, Min, Kalyan, Melissa <br>	+	==07/29/2021==
−	By Phone: Alexandre, Vince, Jie, Ryan, Toby, Ellie, Karl <br>	+	Present: JP, David
−	'''Feature Presentations:'''	+	*David showed a zoomed in plot of the Q^6 Delta_LT scaling agreed upon last week, and JP and David both agreed that this made the high point look unnecessarily bad. David agreed to make a similar version of the Q^4 plot to decide between next week, and include the Q^6 plot in the current paper draft.
		+	*David mentioned that he found Chao's internal presentation of an elastic study which yielded a contribution to the acceptance systematic of 4%. JP commented this was likely to be the dominating systematic for the acceptance and suggested that David use this to obtain a back of the napkin calculation of the XS systematic. JP also suggested that this systematic could be representative of our overall uncertainty in the 1.15 scaling to match the g2p data to the Bosted model, and that we could potentially quote this number to anyone who raises issue with the scaling factor.
		+	*There was a brief discussion of the Drechsel paper JP found, he suggested Karl would probably have access and that the discussion in that paper would likely feed what we should say about d2 in our paper.
		+	*David mentioned that he has been working this week on making a draft of the paper with Karl's comments from last week and JP's comments from this week, and would try to finish in the next day or two to send to the Spokespeople.
		+	*David will be traveling next week but available for a meeting, JP suggested if the draft was sent out this week it would be a good time for a short meeting for Karl, JP, and any others to share their current thoughts and comments on that iteration of the draft.
−	*Melissa	+	==07/22/2021==
−	**Gave an overview of contributions to the systematic uncertainty for the asymmetry.  There are <br>several contributions which are very small (<0.1%) including the charge asymmetry, livetime <br>asymmetry and pion contamination. The target polarization uncertainty was surprisingly small.<br>The values currently listed in the mysql DB for this quantity appear to be incorrect; Toby will<br>update these values.  For the contribution from the dilution factor and radiative corrections, she<br> assigned 5% as a placeholder until a better estimate could be made.  Karl/Ryan commented <br>that 5% uncertainty on the radiative corrections may be too small, 10-15% would be a better<br>estimate at this point.  The tables shown for the longitudinal and transverse settings represent<br>an overestimate of the uncertainty; in the long-term this could be looked at more carefully to<br>decrease the overall systematic uncertainty. More details can be seen in her slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/melissac/Asym/Asym_10_28.pdf here].	+	Present: Alexandre, JP, Karl, David
		+	*David showed a number of slides showing delta_LT multiplied by various powers of Q2.  We commented that Drecschel shows Q6/M2 delta_LT in his paper.  Also the 2004 E94010 polarizabilities showed the same quantitty.  So there is precedent for this.  David will produce a zoomed version of the plot.  He also showed delta_LT/gamma_0, although he has low confidence in the present error bars.  He will revisit and he and Karl will try to add RSS data, Maid and pdfs to see if the transition to the predicted scaling at very large Q2 is at all visible at this very low Q2.
		+	*JP Asked David to look at threshold again, and to try to dig out Chao's evaluation of the acceptance uncertainty from the elog and old wiki presentations.
		+	*Alexandre reminded that there is a lot of good old information in the elog : https://hallaweb.jlab.org/dvcslog/g2p/
		+	*We switched the weekly meeting time to 10:30am on Thursdays.
		+	*Karl will be on travel next week, but expects to be available for the weekly meeting.
−	'''General Discussion:'''
−	*There has been a request from the Hall A CC to have an update on g2p at the winter collaboration <br>meeting.  Ellie and Jie are both interested, they will check the dates of the meetings to see if they <br>are available.
−	==10/14/2015==
−	Present: JP, Min, Jixie, Kalyan, Melissa <br>	+	==05/01/2019==
−	By Phone: Alexandre, Vince, Jie, Todd, Haiyan, Pengjia, Karl, Toby, Ryan, Xiaochao, Nilanga, Chao <br>	+	Present: JP, Karl, David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
−	'''Feature Presentations:'''	+	*David
		+	Showed a number of slides building up the 2.5T 2.2GeV dilution one step at a time to try and analyze any outstanding issues. These plots showed severe edge effects from the momentum settings on all run types. J.P. and Karl suggested fixing this by doing a fit to one of the yield, and then using an offending momentum setting to find a dp correction to the fit and apply it everywhere. The plots also showed several momentum settings where the centroid appeared to be shifted, David promised to do some detective work to try and figure out why.
		+
		+
		+	'''Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	None
		+
		+	==12/06/2018==
		+	Present: Karl, Chao, David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+	None.
		+	'''Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*David
		+	Discussed a final issue with Chao leading to simulated peaks being smeared too wide, because of a smearing parameter in the input file being too big. Said he should have final 5T Longitudinal packing fractions next week, and is prepared to have final 2.5T 2.2GeV packing fractions once Snake Model is complete. Also showed a plot of Gamma 2 indicating that the cost to using just the Material 8 data for the 2.2GeV 2.5T would be costly, more than doubling the total error bar and changing the central value slightly, highlighting the need to use one of the other methods discussed to complete the analysis.
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	Chao said that he will be needing to leave the field and seek a job in industry starting in January, but said he would finish updating the Snake model before he goes so that the packing fraction analysis can be completed with the new method.
		+
		+	==10/04/2018==
		+	Present: J.P., Karl, Chao, David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	*David
		+	Showed several slides on the current status of the 2.5T packing fraction. With several issues fixed, the carbon peak shows good agreement with the helium peak subtracted by using a helium simulated elastic peak and subtracting it scaled by the appropriate packing fraction. For the production data, this process was repeated with an iterative process for the packing fraction of helium, showing no sensitivity to initial guess and converging on relatively reasonable packing fraction results. J.P. and Karl suggested that the fit between the simulation and the data is not perfect, it may be a reasonable enough comparison to function. However, for Material 7, the elastic yield is much sharper than for Material 8, and while the latter matches the shape of the simulation well, the former looks very different. Karl suggested to look into how the materials compare to the simulation for other settings, and J.P. noted that it should be impossible to compare the integrated yield to the simulation if their shape is different. It was also suggested to check on the status of the septa, and see if the simulation has accounted for any possible changes in it.
		+
		+	==09/27/2018==
		+	Present: J.P., Karl, David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	*David
		+	Showed several slides on the current status of the 2.5T packing fraction. Showed first a carbon slide showing better agreement, but still a few very jagged areas in the simulated carbon peak, and mentioned that he has defaulted to comparing dilution data with helium in it, as the optics data proved very hard to work with. J.P. mentioned that in addition to the jagged behavior at the top of the peak, it is worth looking into why the simulation peak seems wider than the production data very slightly at the base. Using the scale factor provided by this carbon comparison, David showed several slides of the resulting packing fractions, doing a linear fit to an 0.4 and 0.6 packing fraction simulated yield. J.P. and Karl gave several suggestions for dealing with the Helium elastic peak, since that has not been done yet. J.P. also suggested it was a good idea to take the whole Nitrogen peak when integrating to find the packing fraction, rather than just part of it. David mentioned he would also talk to Chao about the odd behavior at the top of the elastic peaks and ask for suggestions.  The packing fractions at this stage seem to give reasonable values, though everyone commented it will be important to subtract the Helium elastic peak before finalizing the packing fractions, and apply this same method to one of the 5T energy settings to compare to Toby's Ratio method.
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	None
		+
		+	==09/13/2018==
		+	Present: Chao, J.P., David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	None
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	Working on smoothing out the acceptance correction for the 5T Transverse 2.2 GeV energy setting.
		+
		+	*David
		+	Showed a few slides, indicating that the proper cuts give very good agreement for the carbon data in the elastic region. However, it was discussed that there are many jagged peaks above this region that Chao says should not exist. Chao gave a few suggestions for improving the simulation's agreement. David also asked about how to scale properly by the luminosity, and how to actually put the packing fraction in the simulation, as the setting in the simulation only changes the energy loss according to Chao. J.P. and Chao explained that David should just scale the 0.6 packing fraction simulation by 0.6, and so on, but that each element would need to be scaled separately and added together (so for 0.6 packing fraction, total yield = 0.6 Nitrogen + 0.4 Helium + 0.6 Proton, etc). J.P. also suggested to try simulating an empty cell as the helium peak should be clean and match well.
		+
		+	==08/09/2018==
		+	Present: Chao, Karl, David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	None
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	Working on finishing transverse data, doing another replay, save root files on his local computer so it will not be diluted anymore, will calculate transverse acceptance soon. Won’t be at meeting next week, in two weeks will show final 5T 2.2 GeV transverse acceptance.
		+
		+	*David
		+	Working on comparison between carbon g2psim and data for 2.2GeV 2.5T, asked Chao a few technical questions about weighting the g2psim histograms in C++ or Python.
		+
		+	==08/02/2018==
		+	Present: Chao, J.P., Karl, David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	Chao showed a few slides of final longitudinal acceptance correction, which he said look good except for a discontinuity at the start of the quasi elastic peak for longitudinal. Karl suggested checking the same plots with no dp cut just to compare. Chao also suggested that we make a repository of all g2p codes and simulations so that we can easily access whatever we need.
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*David
		+	David mentioned that he’s working on learning to use g2psim with Chao’s help, so that he can tweak it and produce simulated yields for use in the Oscar PF method.
		+
		+	==07/26/2018==
		+	Present: Chao, Karl, David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	None
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*David: thanked Chao for sending g2psim, asked a few technical questions about operating it. Chao noted that it’s important to run each material seperately, so for production data, to run nitrogen, hydrogen, and helium independently and convolute them. David also showed the functional form of the uncertainty in g2 as a function of the uncertainty in the packing fraction, Karl suggested to provide rough numerical values and David agreed to do so next week.
		+
		+	*Chao: Sent David the current working version of g2p sim, very nearly done with 5T longitudinal acceptance. Will show cross sections for 5T longitudinal next week.
		+
		+	==07/19/2018==
		+	Present: Chao, J.P., Karl, David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
	*Karl		*Karl
−	**Went over the goals of the collaboration meeting:	+	Karl started off with some overview slides to try and get a majority of the work done by the end of the summer before people get busy. He voiced that the biggest question is whether we are using a data or model cross section, where the data is the attractive option if possible to make our results model independent, but the model may be a better option if the data is impossible or will take too long, as we can more or less publish the 5T data now, and the 2.5T data (pending pf analysis)
−	***Discuss physics topics for students graduating soon	+	He also asked if by the end of the meeting, we could identify all outstanding tasks and give an estimate for how long they will take to complete. Barring december, said that we should plan to have a paper submitted to PRL by the end of the year.
−	***Identify major remaining physics topics	+
−	***Establish a policy for the release of plots	+
−	**Suggested a policy for collaboration release of physics results, including specific requirements <br>for moving from "very preliminary" to "preliminary" to "final" results.  Details can be seen in his <br>slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/slifer/2015/slifer_g2pcollab_101415.pdf here], and they will be circulated to the g2p mailing list with some small modifications.	+
−	*Pengjia	+	Moments paper work to be done yet: Low x contribution to BC integral
−	**Will be defending next Wednesday (Oct. 21st).  He showed a "very preliminary" physics <br> asymmetry for the 2.2 GeV 5T setting (both longitudinal and transverse) with a comparison to <br> a radiated model prediction.  He used this result to extract a preliminary value for g1 and g2,<br>using the Bosted model as input for the cross section.  This result does not include radiative<br>corrections.  More details can be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/pzhu/graduate_2015.pdf here].	+	Low nu contribution to gamma0
−	*Min	+	*David
−	**Showed an overview of status of acceptance study; the overall goal is to match the simulation<br>results to the data, so that the simulation can be used to calculate the acceptance. She<br>described the various attempts to correct the simulation results to match the data. Adjusting the<br> apertures based on optics data works well, but the other two methods (adjusting the apertures <br>based on dilution data and adjusting the acceptance cuts after removing the Mott XS from the <br>data) only work well around the target run. In addition, the simulated yield has a different shape <br>than the data, so the simulation must be adjusted to match this. She will go through this process <br>again once Chao is finished with the optics correction. She is planning to graduate next January, <br>and would like to include a cross section difference for one kinematic setting in her thesis. More <br>details can be seen in her slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/mhuang/collab/10142015_collab_Min.pdf here].	+	David showed a talk describing the Oscar Rondon packing fraction method. J.P. voiced that since the method requires scaling the simulation to carbon data, it cannot be used in the elastic region since you would need a different scale factor for carbon or nitrogen, so the only region to apply the method is the very inelastic one. Chao said right now he doesn’t think the simulation can do inelastic data, but that once he applies Ryan’s tweaked Bosted model, he thinks it will be able to. There was some discussion about the error bar for this packing fraction method, and J.P. said that the standard deviation of both the carbon and the production data in the chosen region would need to be applied to get the total error.
		+
		+	There was brief discussion of going back to the unfinished elastic fit method if all else fails, since all that should need to be done is finding a way to deal with quasi elastic contamination.
		+
		+	David also showed plots for the scattering angle for 2.5T 2.2GeV that show that even once the materials are separated out, all the data seems choppy at high E’ values.
		+
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Finally, David relayed a few questions from Ryan. Karl said he doesn’t care which paper is published first and we should just publish them in the order we are able to. He also voiced that Ryan’s hyperfine question was something we could discuss offline or at the next meeting as time ran short. With regard to the question of using our cross sections, the eventual conclusion was that if Chao is able to match the timetable he provided today that it may be feasible to use g2p cross sections for all 2.2GeV energy settings.
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	Chao says within 2 weeks he can get cross section for longitudinal. Estimates within 1 month will have acceptance for 2.2 GeV, 5T Trans+Long, and another 6 weeks for 2.2GeV, 2.5T Trans. He said that 3.4 GeV has no elastic so he’s not sure there will be an acceptance. Karl and JP suggested he then prioritize the three 2.2GeV settings.
		+
		+	David estimated 6-7 weeks to get the packing fraction assuming we can get simulated yields. Chao agreed to send g2p simulation package to David so he can help with adding in missing models (Ryan Bosted-tweak?) and start learning to use it for applying the Oscar Method.
		+
		+	==07/12/2018==
		+	Present: Chao, J.P., Karl, Ellie, David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	*Karl
		+	Showed the plots that he showed at Trento, and mentioned that there is a lot of interest right now specifically in the hyperfine result, as Ryan's calculation of delta 2 disagrees noticeably with the most recent papers. Said that we should try and get the paper out by the end of the year, so we should try and finish both acceptance and pf by the end of summer. Suggested that next week we sit down to figure out a game plan for how to do that.
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*David
		+	Mentioned that he and Karl got in touch with Oscar Rondon to ask a few questions about his packing fraction method, which we hope to try. Also said that he is currently re-playing the packing fraction rootfiles for several gradations of cut in case we want to study the cut dependence of the ratio method. Also working on producing plots for the scattering angle fit for just the carbon data, and for each production material independently. Karl asked Chao about how good the simulation is for the transverse settings, Chao said he has been focusing on the simulation for the 5T 2.2GeV settings but could maybe look into it.
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	Chao said he is continuing to work on the acceptance, and has been looking into the super-elastic peak J.P. asked about last week.
		+
		+	==05/31/2018==
		+
		+	Present: Chao, J.P., Karl, Ellie, David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	Fit correction to the yield for 7 momentum settings in quasielastic region. Checked if the correction is stable and showed plot of yield for a 2.2GeV 5T run with the correction applied. J.P. says effective correction should be fine to fix relative difference. Discussed discontinuity at nu = ~459 MeV, Chao said he can fit that region to try and remove it. Karl asked about the motivation for the correction, Chao explained it is a fit that he found that works. See agendas section for plots.
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*David
		+	Still trying to work on packing fraction analysis. Modified code from Toby to re-add 5T settings, can nearly reproduce Toby's results but scaled down by a factor of 3.5 for all 5T energy settings. Sent an email to Toby and trying to look into what variable change could cause this difference between 2.5T and 5T.
		+
		+	==05/24/2018==
		+
		+	Present: Chao, J.P., Karl, David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	None
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	Still working on data corrections for the acceptance discontinuity, will have results next week. Also looked into beam position and found how to retrieve data from EPICS to help David, though warned that this does not give the real beam position, but the beam jumps should still show up in the raw data.
		+
		+	*David
		+	Working on packing fractions and the to-do list of suggestions Ryan left last week, is able to reproduce Toby's ratios, working on doing a fit to the scattering angle to determine how the simulation might change with the tighter cut. J.P. suggested that taking the average scattering angle required correcting the data to an average as well. David also mentioned that he fixed the issue with getting null results from Toby's code for 5T, but still cannot reproduce the 5T packing fractions correctly.
		+
		+	==05/17/2018==
		+
		+	Present: Chao, J.P., Karl, David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	None
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*David
		+	Showed a few plots of the spread and average for each momentum setting involved in the asymmetry discrepancy analysis for the 2.5T data. However, J.P. noted that some of the means didn't quite make sense given the error bars of the points involved, and it became clear that there were a few mistakes in the normalization of the parameters for these plots. Further, differences between the global run by run asymmetry plot and the momentum-setting ones lead to the conclusion that there must have been a mistake in the presentation of the plots. David said he would re-do this section of the analysis more carefully and try again next week to determine if any of the momentum settings seem pathological.
		+
		+	==04/26/2018==
		+
		+	Present: J.P., Karl, David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	None
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*David
		+	Showed a reprisal of his update on the Left and Right HRS Asymmetry comparison for the 2.2 GeV 2.5 T data to catch J.P. up, and mentioned that he will produce a plot of total asymmetry plotted against run number by using a run by run asymmetry, at Ryan's suggestion. J.P. and Karl both agreed that it would not be wholly unacceptable to add a systematic to the moment data if the issue could not be resolved otherwise, but that it would be ideal to solve it and not have to do that. J.P. also suggested that since the asymmetry seems to be unstable for both arms around the relevant point, that perhaps something happened with the beam, and suggested cross comparing to Jie's BPM analysis to try and determine if there was a beam jump or something similar around the time that the inconsistency occurs.
		+	Also showed a table of packing fractions generated from Toby's scripts with different acceptance cuts. Said that the inclusion/exclusion of the RunStatus 6 Packing Fraction runs seems to have little impact on the Packing Fractions generated, but that using Ryan's tight cut in place of any of Toby's loose cuts produces packing fractions for the 2.2 GeV 2.5 T setting that seemed to Karl to be more reasonable. J.P. and Karl both suggested that one standard cut should be used for everything, preferably Ryan's tight cut since that has been well documented and discussed already. David said he will produce a re-done version of Table 6.4 from Toby's thesis, with all of the packing fractions generated using Ryan's tight cut.
		+
		+	==04/05/2018==
		+
		+	Present: Chao, David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	None
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	Still working on trying to resolve acceptance issue, before J.P. left for China he advised that Chao try cuts on various variables that go into the acceptance, like the Raster and the BPMs, to try to quantify what the effect on the acceptance is. Chao said he is currently working on doing this.
		+
		+	*David
		+	Said that he compared error bar on Gamma 2 to the variation in Gamma 2 caused by the discrepancy in the asymmetry between the left and right arms for the 2.5T 2254 MeV data, and that the total errorbar (statistical+systematic) is about 33% of the value of the moment, while the discrepancy causes a 20% change, for comparison. Also discovered that Toby's rootfile code appears to produce root files formatted differently from the ones his packing fraction script calls so working on eliminating the differences so that they can actually run together.
		+
		+	==03/29/2018==
		+
		+	Present: Karl, David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	*David
		+	Presented an update on the 2.5T 2254 MeV data asymmetry comparison, showing the result of replaying the data with a tighter momentum cut. Unfortunately, the tighter momentum cut seems to worsen the chi^2 comparison rather than improve it. Also showed and discussed with Karl an attempt to determine how serious the effects of the asymmetry discrepancy are on the final value for Gamma 2. The discrepancy seems to be responsible for a 20% variation in Gamma 2, but Karl said this value should be compared to the size of the existing error bar to determine if just throwing a systematic on and using the original data would be a valid way to go. Also re-showed the comparison of data taken on the first sweep up the momentum spectrum to data taken going back down, and showed that the largest discrepancy only occurs on the second set of runs, though no glaring change is notable in the log book.
		+
		+	David also mentioned that he's started work on trying to replay Toby's root files to re-generate the packing fractions for the 2.5T data.
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	None
		+
		+	==03/23/2018==
		+
		+	Present: Chao, David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	Trying to resolve the issue Ryan discovered with acceptance not being continuous for production runs, using Dummy run to try and look at background and subtract out the effects of the target cell itself, runs are scaled by live charge so are proportional to cross section, so can be subtracted. This subtraction removes everything outside the target cell, effectively, the background, but does not consider the difference between foil target and extended target. Cut simulated target into 1mm slices to investigate-- for real target, there is no cross section difference between z=0, z=-13, and z=13, for any kinematic variable. Chao's conclusion is that either simulation doesn't match well, *or* the acceptance should not be dependent on the z position in the target. See slides attached to agendas section.
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*David
		+	Left arm replay finished and asymmetries regenerated for 2.5T 2.2GeV runs, ran into issue with many of the right arm runs failing repeatedly on the batch farm. Going to try running interactively with Screen and using a different queue to avoid timeouts.
		+
		+	==03/09/2018==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, J.P., Karl, David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	None.
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Still waiting on Chao to get back to him about cross section issue, said Chao's explanation makes sense to him. J.P. asked about question dealing with the Y acceptance, but Ryan commented that he hasn't talked to Chao about it yet. Ryan agrees that the target length is the only thing different between carbon and production runs and that this is likely the source of the cross section issue.
		+
		+	*David
		+	Replay finally working, ran into issue with some of the files coming out un-filled from the batch farm, but this is an issue Ryan has seen before and Ryan advised that he replay just the failed runs repeatedly until all of them function.
		+
		+	==11/27/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Ellie, J.P., Karl, David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	None.
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Discussed progress on the PRL with Karl and J.P., and whether or not the acceptance should be included.
		+
		+	==11/17/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Ellie, J.P., Karl, David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	None.
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Corresponding about Hyperfine results with Franziska Hagelstein, got numbers for delta_1 and delta_2, Karl suggested that this is good but evidence that since Ryan's data is on the Arxiv, people are going to want to use it and this is more incentive for us to be expedient in getting to publish. Ryan is working on finishing the hyperfine paper and intends to include both 2.2 GeV 2.5 T data, and the g1 point.
		+
		+	*Karl
		+	Has approved Toby's thesis, after edits that provide more detail on the choice of the ratio method over the fit method for the packing fractions.
		+
		+	*David
		+	Still working on tight dp cut replay, has all of Toby's dilution and packing fraction scripts running locally, Ryan and Karl suggested trying to replay dilutions with a tighter acceptance.
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	Trying to get acceptance study running on JLab batch farm. Longitudinal study for the acceptance is done.
		+
		+
		+
		+	==10/27/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Ellie, J.P., David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	Acceptance study for the longitudinal settings is just about finished. Elastic peak agrees well with theory, continuity of nu spectrum is good. Needs a conversion between slow and fast raster current. Transverse spectrum has not as good continuity, will be fixed soon.
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*David
		+	Still working on tight dp cut replay, showed proof of principle doing dp cut on bin by bin basis, that seems to give more evidence that this is the issue, but aims to make it better with the count by count replay.
		+
		+	*Karl
		+	Showed plots of g2p packing fractions vs SANE packing fractions, discussed the elastic fit method with Toby to determine that the .3 packing fraction is not good, but wants to investigate the suspiciously high 2.5T packing fractions, since SANE data never goes above .74.
		+
		+	==10/06/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Ellie, J.P., David
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	None
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Working on the PRL for the ChiPT paper, just started.
		+
		+	*David
		+	Working on resolving systematic shift in 467 Nu point for 2.2 GeV 2.5T asymmetry between left and right HRS, showed normalized yields, J.P. and Ryan suggested a tight dp cut. Also discussed the suspiciously good chi^2 generated with the method J.P. suggested before, J.P. said he thinks it is fine that the chi^2 is small but that it is necessary to evolve the kinematics of one arm to the other one before combining the 2.5T asymmetries. Also mentioned working on a cross check for the 5T data for g2 with Toby and Ryan, but has a sign error, it was suggested for David to fix the sign of the asymmetry to the theory or the elastic asymmetry peak.
		+
		+
		+	==09/22/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Chao, Ellie, Karl, David
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	None
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Sent model codes to David, discussed dilution's odd behavior at nu > 1000 MeV, explained that previously he and Toby have switched to a model above 950 MeV abruptly from data. Said that packing fraction systematic error doubled after Toby fixed the radiative correction issue. Karl and Ryan discussed the issue of Toby assuming the ratio of carbon to nitrogen was a flat 15%, where Ryan was able to find a paper plotting it vs W.
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	Unable to speak, but will present 5T 2.2 GeV acceptance next week.
		+
		+	*David
		+	Has generated g2 for 2.5T 2.2GeV data, will refine over the coming week.
		+
		+	==09/06/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Karl, J.P., David, Ellie
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	*David
		+	Showed a study on the left and right arm HRS asymmetry comparison for 2.5T. Was able to replicate Ryan's results for 5T asymmetries, J.P. and Karl suggested redefining the chi^2 in terms of the uncertainty of both arms to remove ambiguity. 2.5T 2.2 GeV asymmetries show good agreement with the exception of three data points, which David is investigating, after noting that the runs going into those data points jump by about 5 days and change target material. Karl and J.P. suggested it was also important to obtain information about whether Toby's dilutions should change based on the target material. More details on his slides can be found [https://hallaweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/4/43/G2pHRSCompare.pdf here].
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	None
		+
		+	==08/23/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, J.P., Toby, David, Alexandre
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentation :
		+
		+	None
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Discovered the the divergence in XS from Toby was because the radiation lengths were flipped in Toby's analysis-- TA comes after TB (T after and T before). Toby promised to re-run the code and ensure
		+
		+	*David
		+	Working on Left+Right HRS 2.5T comparison still, trying to get Chi^2 for 5T comparison to be as good as in Ryan's analysis. Using same runs, LHRS asymmetry agrees with Ryan's but RHRS differs for three data points.
		+
		+	==08/09/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Chao, J.P., Karl, David
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentation :
		+
		+	None
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	Working on optics runs to complete acceptance study, trying to figure out a way to work around not having definitive BPM Results.
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Trying to get signatures from committee on thesis, still waiting to hear back from Toby about dilution issues.
		+
		+	*David
		+	Working on Left+Right HRS 2.5T comparison, have preliminary results but with a very large Chi^2 of ~25, trying to work on account for second order effects to knock that down and make sure it is viable to combine the data from both arms.
		+
		+	==08/02/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Karl, David, J.P.
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentation :
		+
		+	None
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*David
		+	Still working on HRS asymmetry comparison for the LHRS and RHRS, installing ROOT and configuring local coding environment. Ryan agreed to help guide David through setting up his environment.
		+
		+	Discussed intelligent magnet power supply, which David will investigate communicating with via USB, irrelevant to the g2p collaboration.
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Thesis edits essentially complete, L+R HRS Comparison had an angle difference of .3 degrees
		+	Ryan and Karl discussed trying to get a better dilution and packing fraction from Toby to deal with other issues in 2.5 T 2.2 GeV data
		+	Ryan should be able to get shell of Hyperfine results soon
		+
		+	*Karl
		+	Karl asked Xiaochao to contact Jie about finishing the BPM analysis, Jie responded that he will not finish the analysis.
		+	In terms of administrative issues, Karl agreed to add David to g2p mailing list so that he can take over sending out weekly meeting emails from Ryan.
		+
		+	==07/19/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, David
−	*Melissa	+	'''Feature Presentations :
−	**Gave an overview of packing fraction analysis.  Of the 5 total settings there are 3 that are reasonably <br>stable with some small drifts in yields, and 2 settings that have larger problems.  During the 2.2 GeV, <br>2.5T setting the raster size was changed, which could possibly be corrected by applying a cut on<br>the center of the raster.  The 1.1 GeV setting has large variations in the elastic yields; some of these <br>runs were taken at low currents (8-20nA), so the beam position information is not reliable.  She also <br>showed the results of a pion asymmetry study.  Although the pion asymmetry is very large, the <br>residual pion contamination after PID cuts are applied is very small, so the correction is not large. <br>She has scheduled her defense for December 4th, and would like to include a preliminary result <br>for g1,g2 in her thesis.  To include a fully corrected result she will need preliminary radiative <br>corrections and dilution results, which she will work with Ryan and Toby to get.  More details can <br>be seen in her slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/melissac/talks/MCummings_CollabMeeting_20151013.pdf here].	+
	*Toby		*Toby
−	**Showed a preliminary dilution value that he had shown previously, and described several issues <br>with the result. These issues include that the model assumes a constant scattering angle, and does <br>not include some acceptance effects that are seen in the data. He has been working on correcting <br>these issues by incorporating a scattering angle from data into the model and applying acceptance <br>cuts to the data to remove acceptance effects. He showed the result of applying the acceptance cut <br>across all kinematics for the 5T longitudinal setting; including the acceptance cut gets rid of some of <br>the strange structure seen in the yields, such as the sawtooth pattern seen at high nu.  The downside <br>of this method is that the acceptance cut causes a large loss in statistics. He is currently working on <br>trying to re-incorporate some of the lost statistics from the acceptance cut.  More details can be seen <br>in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/collaborationupdate.pdf here].	+	Showed an update on the dilution and packing fraction calculation for 2.5T. This is an issue at large nu where the fit to the packing fraction and dilution grow large where the model expects them to level off. Toby thinks this might be an issue with the radiative scale factor he is applying to the data. There is also some questions about the choice of acceptance cut used to generate the quantities. He chose a large acceptance cut to improve statistics but this might have systematic effects causing the rise. He will repeat the analysis at a few difference acceptance cuts to check this effect.  More details on his slides can be found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/2Tdilution_071917.pdf here].
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*David
		+	Working on HRS asymmetry comparison for the LHRS and RHRS
		+
		+	==07/12/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Ellie, David, Chao
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations :
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Showed beam energy values for the experiment run period on production runs. There are some  bigger than expected fluctuations. To first order the effect of this is small (Mott XS variation) but the question is how this could effect calibrations, such as the BPM calibration. More details on his slides can be found [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_071217.pdf here].
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Toby
		+	2.5 T packing fraction values. Taking into account yield drifts gives a systematic error on the order of 15% at 2.2 GeV 2.5 T. Looking into 1.7 GeV settings next
		+
		+	*David
		+	Working on HRS asymmetry comparison for the LHRS and RHRS
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	Working on acceptance simulation. Running simulation for the production runs. Slow going because he can only runs a handful of jobs at a time.
		+
		+	==07/05/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Karl, Toby, J.P., Chao, David
		+
		+	General Discussion:
		+
		+	*Batch farm is prioritizing multi-threaded jobs so this will impact g2p replay and also Chao's acceptance simulation timeline.
		+
		+	*Toby is going to start looking at the 2.5T dilutions this week.
		+
		+	*David has generated asymmetries but results are consistent with zero so he will try larger binning (up from 10 MeV)
		+
		+	==06/28/2017==
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, David, Karl, Chao, JP, Alexandre, Xiaochao, Ellie
		+
		+	General Discussion:
		+	*2.5T data quality. Based upon error bars from a quick moment analysis of the 2.5T data from Ryan it appears that the 2.2/1.7 GeV data is useful for publication with Q2 values of approx 0.04 GeV2 and 0.02 GeV2, respectively. The 1.1 GeV data error bars are very large, which is in part due to the very small asymmetry prediction at that low Q2 (0.009 GeV2).
		+
		+	*Toby is leaving to start a job on July 24. He will try and get something together for the dilution and packing fraction analysis for the 2.5T settings.
		+
		+	*Chao is making good progress with the longitudinal acceptance for the carbon data. He is able to produce a continuous spectrum with good agreement in the overlap regions at large nu. Unfortunately there is no overlap around the delta-resonance. He will do a similar study except at the transverse settings next.
		+
		+	*David is going to work on the data quality check for the 2.5T asymmetries. His first step is to produce g2p asymmetries and compare to results from Ryan and Toby.
		+
		+	==06/21/2017==
		+	No meeting because of Hall A collaboration meeting.
		+
		+	==06/14/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Karl, Toby, J.P.,Chao
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentation :
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Showed the results of a quick analysis of the 1.7 and 1.1 GeV 2.5 T settings. The 1.7 GeV data looks pretty good and can most likely be used going forward. There is one momentum setting just previous to the delta where the majority of the data was taken with a mismatched septa and dipole configuration, so it is not included in these slides. He will try including this data to see the effect it has on the results. It should probably be OK for the asymmetry. The 1.1 GeV data looks worse statistically, which related to the much smaller asymmetry that we see as we go to lower and lower Q2.  As we go to lower Q2 we also have the added complication of the Christy fit we're using for the unpol XS getting worse and worse. Going forward Ryan will do a quick moment analysis of this data. More details on his slides can be found  [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_061417.pdf here].
		+
		+	*Toby
		+	Showed different methods for calculating the low-x portion of the BC sum rule. These include the polarized PDF's and Hall B model. The problem is that none of these methods are really applicable at the g2p kinematics (PDF's hold down to Q2 = 1 GeV2), and that the low-x portion of the integral must be a sizable contribution for the BC sum rule to hold. Going forward we will most likely assume that the BC sum rule holds and use that assumption to place a limit on the low-x behavior of g2 at low Q2. More details on his slides can be found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/bcsum_unmeasured_061417.pdf here].
		+
		+	==06/07/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Karl, Toby, J.P.,Chao, Ellie
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentation :
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Showed the results of a quick analysis of the 2.2 GeV 2.5 T settings. The goal of this analysis was to check the overall quality of the data  and includes the combined statistics of both the RHRS and LHRS. The overall statistical precision of the data is pretty good considering the much lower target polarization of the 2.5T settings (15% on average compared to the 70% for the 5T runs). Going forward he will do a similar study for the 1.1 GeV and 1.7 GeV settings and also complete a very preliminary moment analysis of these settings. These settings also need a completed dilution and packing fraction analysis  [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_060717.pdf slides].
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
	*Jie		*Jie
−	**Gave an update on his study using simulation to understand the drifts in yields. He looked at several <br>momentum settings in the 2.2 GeV, 2.5T setting that had variation in the yields. He varied the beam <br>position along the horizontal and vertical directions using both a point beam and rastered beam. He <br>generated a table summarizing the results using a Monte Carlo method, cross checking with averaged <br>acceptance. His results were similar to his previous test using only the Bosted model; some results <br>agree with what was seen in the data, some have the opposite sign. He will write up his method and <br>results in a technote. He is planning to graduate in summer of 2016. More details can be seen in his <br>slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/2015_10_09_simulation/2015_10_14_collaboration_meeting.pdf here].	+	Published his BPM tech-note update to the wiki.
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	Summarized his acceptance study progress. So far he has applied his 8mm raster cut method (+/- 15mrad in ph and 20 mrad in th) to the elastic carbon long. setting and gets 5% agreement between the simulation and data. He is able to drastically reduce the uncertainty in the raster cut by cutting on current and not size. The timing information of the raster is known very well. He knowns the time the raster spends inside the area of the cut and the time it spends outside. The ratio between these two times is scaled to the total charge. He is currently applying this to all the carbon dilution data at longitudinal to see how this procedure works at other P0. He estimates this will take 2-3 weeks. After that he will move onto the transverse setting and estimates that will take an additional 1-2 months to complete.
		+
		+	==05/31/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Karl, Toby, J.P.,Chao
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentation :
		+
		+	*Toby
		+	Showed an update on his g2 moment calculations. His moments included the BC sum rule and also DeltaLT. From his analysis it was concluded that it is very difficult to verify the BC sum rule at low Q2 because of the lack of data at low x. The DeltaLT results look much better. More details on his slides are found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/g2moments_talk_053117.pdf here].
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+	*Jie
		+	Still working on his BPM tech-note/update.
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	Planning on talking with JP about his acceptance study update. Had to leave early to go to another meeting.
		+
		+	==05/24/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, David, Karl, Toby, J.P., Jie, Ellie
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentation :
		+
		+	None
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Jie
		+	Still working on his BPM tech-note/update. Hopes to have it done by next week. This might also be his last g2p meeting before he starts his new job. Will also add his thesis to the wiki.
		+
		+	==05/17/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, David, Karl, Toby, J.P. Chao
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentation :
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Showed an analysis for an explanation for why the 2.2 GeV Longitudinal polarized DS does not go to zero below the pion production threshold after tail subtraction. His idea is that the elastic radiative events come from a different part of the acceptance than the inelastic events. This effect could be potentially large if a large acceptance cut is used. The big unknown in this analysis is what is the exact angle difference. With the current reconstruction/simulation status it's very difficult to determine. In the future, if the simulation is able to reproduce the angular acceptance then the tails can be calculated and weighted for the simulated acceptance. This also raises potential problems for getting a polarized DS from an asymmetry and cross section calculated with different acceptance cuts. For now, the analysis will proceed with the old method and assume one scattering angle. Ryan will check the results of using a tight asymmetry and tight cross section cut to see how the tail subtraction is effected. More details on his slides are found [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_051717.pdf here].
	*Chao		*Chao
−	**Gave an update on optics analysis.  Comparisons of simulation with data revealed that the <br>reconstructed kinematics have some offset. A correction was added to the reconstructed kinematics <br>(vs beam position) and he is currently working on merging this correction into the database with a <br>finely tuned fitting procedure. The problem is that the horizontal beam position shifts the dp <br>reconstruction.  He showed the results of applying the new optics matrix which corrects for this shift. <br> He will apply this method to all kinematic settings and study the uncertainty of the optics.  Once this <br>is done he will write a NIM paper for g2p optics. He plans to graduate in February/March and would <br>like to include the cross section difference for one or two settings with tuned acceptance and model <br>inputs to obtain a physics result. More details can be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/chao/20151014/Chao_WeeklyMeeting_10142015.pdf here].	+	Showed an update on the optics simulation and he is currently trying to beat down the systematic error from making a raster cut. He is currently cutting on raster current as opposed to raster size to improve the uncertainty. With a raster cut the simulation is much better able to reproduce the data.
		+
		+	==05/10/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Jie, David, Toby, Ellie, JP
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentation :'''
	*Ryan		*Ryan
−	**Since the last collaboration meeting he has improved the model tuning procedure by using an <br>automated procedure instead of tuning the model by hand.  He has tested this using carbon data <br>from the UVa database and will run it for nitrogen data once he has updated saGDH N2 cross <br>sections from Vince. He also updated the systematic error study for inelastic unpolarized radiative <br>corrections by separating the integration/iteration error from the interpolation error. He has the <br>polarized radiative correction code running, and has completed a systematic uncertainty study on <br>the inelastic radiative corrections.  He is also working on evaluating physics quantities using models, <br>specifically the hyperfine splitting calculation.  He plans to graduate in summer/fall of 2016 and would <br>like to include full radiative corrections on g2p polarized cross sections in his thesis. More details can<br> be seen in his slides [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_101315.pdf here].	+	Showed an analysis update of the results section of his thesis and includes analysis of all of the 5T settings. He evaluated the g1 moments and the hyperfine splitting contributions for g1 and g2.   More details on his slides are found [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_051017.pdf here].
		+	==05/03/2017==
−	'''General Discussion:'''	+	Present: Ryan, Jie, David, Karl, Toby, Ellie, JP, Chao
−	*Important to do cross checks of results between students (ex. asymmetries)	+
−	*Must be careful to include details of any physics results (whether radiative corrections are included,<br>dilution factor, model input instead of data, etc.)	+
−	==9/30/2015==	+	'''Feature Presentation :'''
−	Present: JP, Kalyan, Jixie, Min <br>	+	*David
−	By Phone: Pengjia, Toby, Ryan, Vince, Jie, Chao, Karl <br>	+	Showed an update for calculating the acceptance correction by normalizing to the elastic cross section. His uncertainty in this method is slightly better than the results Toby showed before and his dominant uncertainty is the scattering angle reconstruction and it's effect on the Mott XS and elastic form factors. He will look into further separating the quasi-elastic and elastic peaks by subtracting out the elastic tail for helium-4. More details on his slides are found [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/xsscalefactor.pdf here].
−	'''Feature Presentations:'''	+	==4/26/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Jie, David, Karl, Toby, Ellie
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentation :'''
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+
		+	Showed results of a parallel asymmetry analysis between Toby and Ryan. The asymmetries agree very well and the only slight difference is at the longitudinal setting. This difference is a result of slightly different acceptance cuts used in the analysis and goes away if the same cuts are used.  More details on his slides are found [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_042617.pdf here].
	*Toby		*Toby
−	**Showed an update on his acceptance/dilution study.  He continued with the study of the cuts on the <br>reconstructed &theta; vs &phi; distribution at the target.  He scanned several different &theta; vs &phi; cuts to see how <br>the acceptance effects the scattering angle and resulting yields. It turns out the small angle region is <br>influenced by the acceptance a lot but the center region gives a good agreement to the model. He <br>also loosed the center cut to &theta; ~ ± 40 mrad and &phi; ~ ± 10 mrad, the data still agreed with the model. <br>He then recalculated the dilution factor for 2.254 GeV longitudinal setting. More details on his <br>acceptance cuts and method can be found in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/diltalk_093015.pdf here].	+	Posted an update on last weeks slides to include a model comparison to his calculated cross sections. His slides are found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/xs_talk_042617.pdf here].
		+	==4/19/2017==
−	==9/23/2015==	+	Present: Ryan, Jie, David, Karl, Toby, Ellie, Chao<br>
−	Present: JP, Kalyan, Min, Melissa <br>	+	'''Feature Presentations :'''
−	By Phone: Pengjia, Toby, Ryan, Vince, Jie, Chao, Karl <br>	+
−	'''Feature Presentations:'''	+	*Toby
−	*Pengjia	+	Showed a comparison between calculating polarized cross sections using a model and using data. In the data method he multiplies the raw asymmetry by the raw cross section with no dilution correction. In the model method he applies the dilution to the asymmetry and then uses a unpolarized proton model (radiated). The two results agree pretty well except for the 3.3 GeV setting where the yield drifts present problems with the dilution and cross section calculation. We will most likely have to use a model at this setting. More details on his slides are found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/xsdiff_041917.pdf here].
−	**Showed the structure of his code to create a radiated model of the MAID and Bosted <br>models, based on Ryan's radiative correction work. He showed the breakdown of the <br>different components to the radiated model (internal, external and elastic tail). He used<br> the radiated model to calculate an asymmetry and cross section differences, which he <br> compared with data. Finally, he combined asymmetries calculated from data with the <br>Bosted model cross section to calculate a value for g1 and g2, which he compared <br>with values of g1/g2 determined using the MAID model. More details can be seen in <br>his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/pzhu/09222015/asym_g12.pdf here].	+
−	*Min	+	Verbal Updates:
−	**Gave an update on acceptance studies.  Last time, she found that by adjusting the<br>apertures in the simulation she could match the data/simulation results for dp (for one <br>momentum setting). She tested this method for other momentum settings and found <br>that it did not work as well.  She also showed a comparison of the yield spectrum for<br>helium runs in the 1.7 GeV setting; the shape of the two distributions are quite <br>different, which might suggest that the model deviates significantly form the data.  In<br>the simulated results she saw several "bumps" in the yield, which correspond to the<br>location of resonances.  She will update these results when the optics corrections are <br>complete.  More details can be seen in her slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/mhuang/acceptance/09232015.pdf here].	+
		+	*Chao
−	'''General Discussion:'''	+	Talked about using the raster cut in the simulation to match data and simulation for the acceptance. He's going to soon try and apply this raster cut method across the momentum settings at the longitudinal setting and see how well the simulation can match data. He's currently using a 30 mRad phi cut, which is significantly larger than the cut Toby is using and will the systematic uncertainty from knowing the cut boundary. There is going to be an additional systematic from using a raster cut when it comes to calculating the accumulated charge. He is looking into this.
−	*We would like to schedule another collaboration meeting in the near future. The <br>meeting is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday October 14th during our usual meeting <br>time (10am-12pm).	+
−	*The purpose of the meeting is to:	+
−	**Discuss student thesis topics (particularly any updates from the last <br>collaboration meeting)	+
−	**Establish a procedure for presentation/release of collaboration plots/results	+
−	*Each student should prepare a few slides (~5 minutes) to show analysis progress	+
		+	==4/12/2017==
−	==9/16/2015==	+	Present: Ryan, Jie, David, Karl, Toby, JP, Ellie<br>
−	Present: Min, JP, Jixie, Melissa <br>	+	No presentations this week. Toby and Ryan are working on comparing their asymmetry results to confirm that their methods agree. Jie's graduation date is May 9 and he is still working on finishing up his thesis.
−	By Phone: Vince, Jie, Chao, Pengjia, Alex, Ryan, Toby, Ellie <br>	+
		+	==3/29/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Jie, David, Karl, Toby, JP, Chao, Ellie<br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations :'''
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Showed an update including the Gamma1 and GDH moment calculations. The results have very good statistical error bars when compared with the Hall B data and also his integration of the Hall B data agrees with the published Hall B results. More details can be found in his slides [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_032917.pdf here].
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	Showed an update on the simulation for Run 5612. He is able to reproduce the edges of the acceptance better if he places a very tight cut on the raster size. This suggests a beam position reconstruction issue. Going forward he is going to look at the uncertainty introduced by this raster cut and see which has the larger contribution to the uncertainty: raster cut or acceptance cut. More details can be found in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/chao/weekly/Chao_WeeklyMeeting_20170329.pdf here].
		+
		+	==3/22/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Jie, David, Karl, Toby, JP, Chao<br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations :'''
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Showed a comparison between the Bosted model and low Q2 SLAC data. The agreement between data and the model is better at larger Q2 and around 15% at the 5T setting kinematics. Ryan is waiting on an updated model from Eric Christy that includes the low Q2 data in the fit. More details can be found in his slides [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_032217.pdf here].
		+
		+	*Toby
		+	Also showed a comparison between the Bosted model and the SLAC data but included a preliminary g2p cross section as well. The agreement is at the 15% level with our data. More details can be found in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/xs_talk_032217.pdf here].
		+
		+	*David
		+	Showed a method for calculating the helium-4 elastic cross section from g2p empty dilution runs. He compares the g2p data to the Rosenbluth result from the MSW (McCarthy-Sick-Whitney) form factors and get's agreement at the 10% level. He will look into adding systematic uncertainty estimates to both his measured and calculated quantities. He will also investigate the 'Delta E' term in the elastic peak radiative corrections. More details on his slides can be found [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/he4crosssectionanalysis3.pdf here].
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	A request was made by Eva-Maria Kabuss for some g2p slides to present at DIS 2017 (April 3-7).
		+
		+	==3/15/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Jie, David, Karl, Toby, JP, Chao, Ellie<br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations :'''
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	Showed an update on the optics and acceptance simulation. He showed that for a carbon run with no liquid helium and at the longitudinal target configuration he is able to match data to simulation with a very tight acceptance cut. He is working on expanding this cut to reduce the overall systematic uncertainty in the acceptance. Super elastic events and carbon excited states make expanding this range difficult. More details on his slides can be found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/chao/weekly/Chao_WeeklyMeeting_20170315.pdf here].
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+	*Jie
		+	Graduation date is set for May 9, 2017.
		+
		+	==3/8/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Jie, David, Karl, Toby, JP<br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations :'''
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Showed an update on how he is extracting g1 from the longitudinal data and evolving it to a constant Q2. He also showed a preliminary calculation of the gamma0 moment, which agrees well with the current Hall B measurements and chiral perturbation theory predictions. More details on his slides can be found [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_030817.pdf here].
		+
		+	==3/1/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, David, Jie, JP, Karl, Ellie, Chao<br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations :'''
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Showed an update on the systematic error analysis going into the asymmetries, polarized cross sections and radiative corrections. Currently the dominating systematic error is from the angle reconstruction and use of an unpolarized model to create the polarized cross sections. The angle reconstruction error is amplified at low angles because of the strong Mott dependence. The unpolarized cross section systematic could be reduced in the future by substituting in g2p data for that component. More details on his slides can be found [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_022917.pdf here].
		+
		+	*Jie
		+	Gave an update on the BPM calibration process. Showed that there is a strong position dependence to the off-sets determined from Harp scans. Through the reconstruction procedure he is unable to reproduce the location of the harp scan points because of this position dependence. More details on his slides can be found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/2017_0301_plots/yields_update_20170301.pdf here].
		+
		+	*Toby
		+	Presented the status of the dilution analysis for the 3.3GeV settings. The analysis is complicated by the large yield drifts seen in the data. He is still trying to figure out a method to give reasonable dilution results at this setting. But whatever method he settles on will most likely come with an increased level of systematic error. More details on his slides can be found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/3350_dilution_talk.pdf here].
		+
		+	==2/22/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, David, Jie, JP<br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations :'''
		+
		+	No feature presentations this week. Everyone is planning on presenting next week.
		+
		+	==2/15/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, David, Jie, JP<br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations :'''
		+
		+	*Jie:
		+	Showed an update the BPM calibration. There was some discussion on the base assumptions Jie is making in removing potential position dependence on some calibrations constants (b-/b+). More details on his slides can be found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/2017_0214_plots/yields_update_20170215.pdf here].
		+
		+	'''General Discussion :'''
		+
		+	*Toby:
		+	Updated target polarizations are available now.
		+
		+	*Ryan:
		+	HERMES publication from 2013 of new BC Sum Rule calculation at Q2 = 5 GeV2. Data is consistent with 0 but with large error bars.
		+
		+	==2/8/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, David Karl, Jie, JP, Chao, Ellie<br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations :'''
		+
		+	*Ryan:
		+	Showed the final systematics for the inelastic and elastic RC's. The end result is 2-3% for the elastic tail and 3-5% for the inelastic RCs. More details on his slides can be found [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_020817.pdf here].
		+
		+	'''General Discussion :'''
		+
		+	*Toby:
		+	Updating his systematic uncertainty on the target polarization analysis.
		+
		+	==2/1/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, David Karl, Jie, JP, Chao, Ellie<br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations :'''
		+
		+	*Jie:
		+	Gave an update on the BPM analysis. Still have trouble solving the position jumps. More details on his slides can be found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/20170201/yields_update_20170201.pdf here].
		+
		+	*Ryan:
		+	Showed the outline of the g2p radiative corrections procedure, including the polarized elastic tail and RADCOR and POLRAD formulations of the inelastic RCs. Also presented systematics for the unfolding procedure. He will next finalize the theory systematics for the RCs. More details on his slides can be found [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_012517.pdf here].
		+
		+	*Chao:
		+	Gave an update on the acceptance study. He showed that at the longitudinal setting the shift from 0 in the theta_tg histogram is caused by the target field. The effect is more pronounced at transverse settings. More details on his slides can be found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/chao/weekly/Chao_WeeklyMeeting_20170201.pdf here].
		+
		+	'''General Discussion :'''
		+
		+	*Toby:
		+	g2p dilutions are now available on the [https://hallaweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/G2p_dilutions wiki].
		+
		+	==1/18/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Jie, JP, Chao, Ellie<br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations :'''
		+
		+	*Jie:
		+	Hoping for a May graduation with his thesis split between three topics (g2p is one). Point was made that Jie must finish his BPM study before graduation because at this point he is the only one that can do it. More details on his slides can be found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/2017_0118_graduation_plan.pdf here].
		+
		+	*Toby:
		+	Hoping for a May graduation with a close-to-final g2 his goal for his thesis. Finishing up the dilution analysis for 3.3 GeV 5T. More details on his slides can be found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/timeline_update_011817.pdf here].
		+
		+	*Ryan:
		+	Hoping for a June-August graduation with a close-to-final g2/hyperfine point his goal for his thesis. Finishing up the g2p radiative corrections procedure setup. More details on his slides can be found [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_011817.pdf here].
		+
		+	*Chao:
		+	Gave an update on the acceptance study. He is still having a hard time matching the simulation to data. More details on his slides can be found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/chao/weekly/Chao_WeeklyMeeting_20170118.pdf here].
		+
		+	'''General Discussion :'''
		+
		+	*Karl:
		+	is looking into the EG1b data for our highest Q2 settings as the parallel component for g2.
		+
		+	==1/11/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Jie, David, Chao<br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations :'''
		+
		+	*Ryan:
		+	Showed the effect a 0.3 degree scattering angle difference between HRSs would have on the data. Calculated this difference using models and then compared the data to it. The data is consistent with a straight line fit at 0, so the statistics of g2p are not sufficient to make a definitive statement. Also showed a calculation for the uncertainty in the out-of-plane polarization angle using a psuedo Monte-Carlo method. The uncertainty is around 1%. Details of his slides can be found [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_011117.pdf here].
		+
		+	==1/04/2017==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl JP, Jie,<br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations :'''
		+
		+	*Ryan:
		+	Showed an update on the comparison between the LHRS and RHRS asymmetries for 2.2GeV 5T transverse. Using course 70 MeV bins and cutting out runs with large livetime and charge asymmetry he was able to get good agreement between the two spectrometers. The agreement is independent of the out-of-plane polarization angle correction. There is some question about the effect of the minor difference in the scattering angle between HRS's and the asymmetry. He will present on this difference at the next meeting. More details on his slides can be found [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_010417.pdf here].
		+
		+	*Jie:
		+	Still looking into the BPM calibrations and the source of the BPM position jumps that don't see a corresponding yield change. He hopes to have this analysis wrapped up by the end of January. More details on his slides can be found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/2017_0103_plots/yields_update_20170104.pdf here].
		+
		+	*Other news:
		+	At the 1/18/2017 weekly meeting we're planning on having a discussion on the analysis path forward. The primary focus on this discussion will be the experimental cross sections.
		+
		+	==12/21/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Vince, JP, Jie, Chao<br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations :'''
		+
		+	*Toby:
		+	Showed an update on the packing fraction analysis with a new method that is similar to his dilution calculation. This method gives a lower uncertainty than his elastic fit method. His two methods agree within the uncertainties for almost all of the settings. He will check the few kinematic settings where this isn't true and also try to pin down the systematic error from using the Bosted model to scale C12 to N14. More details on his slides can be found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/pf_talk_122016.pdf here].
		+
		+	*Other news:
		+	Vince's last day at g2p meetings. Good luck at your new job Vince!
		+
		+	==12/14/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Vince, JP, Jie, Chao<br>
	'''Feature Presentations:'''		'''Feature Presentations:'''
		+
		+	*Jie:
		+	Showed a status update on the BPM calibration procedure. More details can be found in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/2016_11_10_plots/yields_update_20161214.pdf here].
		+
		+	*Chao:
		+	Still having trouble matching the width of the simulation peaks to peaks from data. Even getting rid of all apertures did not sufficiently widen the simulation peak. He is continuing to look into it. More details can be found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/2016_11_10_plots/yields_update_20161214.pdf here].
		+
		+	==12/07/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Vince, JP, Jie, Alexandre<br>
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Toby
		+	Working on getting his dilution code back up and running
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Working on asymmetry comparisons between the LHRS/RHRS at 2.2 GeV 5T Transverse.
	*Jie		*Jie
−	**Gave an update on his simulation study using MUDIFI. Last time he showed that he uses a<br>least square fit to go from endplane to endplane.  For the g2p simulation, it's used to go from<br>(x,y,&theta;,&phi;,dp) in the target plane to (x,y,&theta;,&phi;,dp) in the focal plane. SNAKE produces (x,y,&theta;,&phi;,dp)<br>data in both planes and a polynomial function can be used to determine the relationship<br>between the two planes. First the maximum power for each variable is determined, symmetries<br>are included (if applicable), then the priority of each function must be determined. A Gram-<br>Schmidt transformation is used to do the minimization, and the final step is to decide whether<br>to accept the function f<sub>i</sub>. JP/Vince asked how the priority for each function is chosen, since the<br>choice could introduce some ordering dependence. Since we don't have enough data to<br>constrain, JP suggested introducing some physics. He also suggested getting rid of dp in the<br>focal plane (since it is really just dp in the target plane) so that there is one less dimension to<br>fit. More details can be seen in Jie's slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/2015_09_15_simulation/2015_09_15_Simulation_update.pdf here].	+	Talking with Pengjia still about the BPM calculation procedure. Will give an in-depth update on the status of the BPM analysis at the next meeting.
		+
		+	==11/30/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Ellie, JP, Jie, Kalyan, Alexandre, Vince, Jixie, Chao <br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations'''
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Showed an update on the out-of-plane polarization angle calculation. The calculation agrees with Chao's result but still seems too large (40 - 65 degrees). Chao is working on confirming the results. Details of his slides can be found [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_113016.pdf here].
		+
		+	*Toby
		+	Showed an update on the packing fraction analysis. He presented final values for all settings except for 1.1 GeV 2.5 T. The difficulty at this setting is that the quasi-elastic peak is barely separable from the elastic peak so he is unsure of how to fit it. This is also a problem at the other 2.5 T settings and is manifest in the larger systematic uncertainties. Details of his slides can be found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/pf_talk_113016.pdf here].
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	working on out-of-plane polarization angle calculation and will also confirm the proton elastic simulation results for Toby.
		+
		+	*Jie
		+	Talking with Pengjia still about the BPM calculation procedure.
		+
		+	==11/23/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Karl, JP, Jie, Kalyan, Alexandre <br>
		+
		+	*Jie
		+	Discussed BPM calibration method
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Working on calculating the out-of-plane polarization angle, with help from Chao. Hoping to confirm method with Chao and present something soon.
		+
		+	==11/16/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl,Chao, Jie, Vince, Alexandre <br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations'''
		+
		+	*Jie
		+	Showed an update on the BPM calibration procedure. His correlation method for calculating the pedestals improves the uncertainty but does not affect the position reconstruction. In the calibration procedure there is an offset term that as large variations between calibration points. Pengjia fit this constant for current dependence but it is also possible it might have some positional dependence. Jie is going to talk with Pengjia about this. More details on his slides can be found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/2016_11_10_plots/yields_update_20161116.pdf here].
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Toby is working on finalizing the uncertainties for the packing fraction analysis and is running into some issues with g2psim.
		+
		+	*Ryan is working on calculating the out-of-plane polarization angle, with help from Chao.
		+
		+	==11/02/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, JP, Vince, Alexandre <br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations'''
	*Ryan		*Ryan
−	**Gave an update on evaluating physics quantities using models.  His goal was to do a<br>comparison of the hyperfine splitting calculation in C. Carlson's 2006/2008 paper using MAID<br>and Hall B models.  Previously he showed a comparison using the Hall B model, where he saw<br>good agreement between his calculation and Carlson's result.  For this time he also did a<br>comparison using the MAID model.  There is a large difference between the two models for the<br>value of the integrand of &Delta;<sub>2</sub>, over the full range of Q<sup>2</sup>. JP suggested comparing the value of g2<br>between the two models, instead of &Delta;<sub>2</sub>.  More details can be seen in his slides [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_091615.pdf here].	+	Showed a brief update on calculating the out-of-plane angle correction to the perpendicular polarized cross sections. He will talk to Chao about how to make this calculation using the reconstructed variables in the replayed ROOT files.  More details on his slides can be found [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_110116.pdf here].
		+	*Toby
		+	Showed a slide on the yield spectra for the elastic runs in PF analysis at all kinematic settings. The nitrogen and helium peaks are only clearly visible at the 2.2 GeV 5T transverse setting, so he will need to adjust his fitting routine to account for this at the other settings.  More details on his slides can be found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/elastic_allsettings.pdf here].
		+
		+	==10/26/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Jie, JP, Chao, Ellie, Vince, Jixie <br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations'''
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Showed an update on the polarized radiative corrections using POLRAD at the g2p kinematics (non-constant scattering angle). He showed that using the same angle fit for all the input spectra (as opposed to individual fits representing measured data) the systematic error was similar to that of data taken at a constant scattering angle. For this study he used the MAID 2007 model. He recommends using models for the RC'ing of g2p data but those models could be tuned and checked using measured data. More details on his slides can be found [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_102616.pdf here].
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	Working on the optics and acceptance simulation and tuning the simulation aperatures. Showed a short slide with better agreement between data and simulation. Still working on improving this.
		+
		+	*Jie
		+	Working on the BPM position calibration procedure.
		+
		+	==10/19/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Jie, JP, Chao, Ellie, Vince, Jixie <br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations'''
−	'''General Discussion:'''
	*Toby		*Toby
−	**Last time he showed a comparison between data and cross sections calculated using the<br>Bosted model (seen [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/acceptance_scatangle.pdf here]). The model was not continuous for one momentum setting.  It <br>turns out the BPM was not recording for that setting, so he re-calculated the XS using<br>values for &theta; and &phi; from surrounding runs and found that the result was now consistent with<br>the neighboring momentum settings.  He also played around with the acceptance cuts he<br>showed, and found a region using the "extreme cut" where the sawtooth pattern go away<br>and the yields become flat.	+	Showed an update on his method for calculating the packing fraction, along with his estimate for the systematic uncertainty. He's hoping to finalize the results for the 5.0 T settings within the next few weeks.  More details on his slides can be found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/pf_talk_101816.pdf here]. There was some discussion that his uncertainty of ~8% in the fitting method is overestimated as described in the slides, so hopefully the systematic uncertainty is at the 10% level, maximum.
		+	Verbal Updates:
−	==9/9/2015==	+	*Chao
		+	Working on the optics and acceptance simulation and tuning the simulation aperatures.
−	Present: Min, JP, Jixie, Melissa <br>	+	*Jie
−	By Phone: Vince, Jie, Chao, Ryan, Toby, Karl <br>	+	Working on the BPM position calibration procedure. Still trying to fully understand Pengjia's method.
−	'''Feature Presentations:'''	+	*Ryan
		+	Working on setting up inelastic radiative corrections procedure for changing angle of g2p.
		+
		+	==10/12/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Jie, JP, Chao <br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations'''
	*Jie		*Jie
−	**Gave an overview of his simulation study using SNAKE and MUDIFI.  Using SNAKE, the<br>idea is to trace the particle trajectory in a series of free boxes, then an endplane can be<br>defined within the free boxes to determine the trajectory from endplane to endplane. In<br>g2psim this will be used to trace the trajectory between the sieve plane and the focal<br>plane. There are two important issues to consider, the magnetic field in the free boxes,<br>and the transportation method between the two endplanes.  A Runge-Kutta method is <br>used for the transportation, and an adaptive method (which changes with field size and<br>gradient) is used to determine the step size. For the magnetic field, a 3D Tosca field<br>map is used for the septum, and an analytic model is used for the spectrometer magnets. <br>  He also described the method for choosing the transportation function to determine the <br>25 matrix terms for each kinematic variable (up to 4th order).  JP asked how to determine <br>which order is more important, and cautioned to be careful not to over fit the data.  He and<br>Jie will discuss this more offline.  More details can be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/2015_09_09_simulation_update/2015_09_09_Simulation%20update.pdf here].	+	Showed final results for the BPM pedestal uncertainty using his new correlation method for the 2.2 GeV 5T transverse setting. The uncertainties are about a factor of 3-4 better than previous and are approx. 1mm and 1mrad at the target. He is moving on to finishing this study at other settings and also looking into the BPM calibration procedure and beam position jumps.  More details on his slides can be found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/2016_10_10_plots/yields_update_20161010.pdf here].
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
	*Chao		*Chao
−	**Gave an optics status update. The current problem is that changes in the horizontal beam<br>position changes the dp reconstruction.  This was fixed by applying a linear correction in<br>BPM-x and BPM-y to &theta;, &phi; and dp.  Applying this correction made the data/simulation <br>agree, but it is still necessary to understand the correction.  Using dp scan data with beam<br>position scan data still leaves an offset in &theta; and &phi;.  He also tried two other methods to do<br>the calibration.  Method 1 uses the central hole to determine a constant offset, uses the<br>horizontal beam position scan data to determine all the matrix elements related to y, and<br>uses dp scan runs to fit the additional matrix elements.  Method 2 uses beam position<br>scan data to determine the matrix elements that are not related to x<sub>fp</sub>. Neither of these<br>methods works very well, even when the fitting order of the matrix elements are adjusted.<br>He will continue to check more fitting procedures.  More details can be found in his slides <br>[http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/chao/20150909/Chao_WeeklyMeeting_09092015.pdf here].	+	Working on the optics and acceptance simulation. Believes that the previous mismatch he showed with data and simulation at bigger angular acceptance was due to the simulation aperatures blocking more events than seen in the data. Current size estimates of the aperatures is from a combination of g2p survey and historical Hall A information.
−	*Pengjia	+	*Toby
−	**Gave an update on comparing asymmetries from data/models for the 2.2 GeV, 5T <br>longitudinal setting. He first radiated the Bosted model XS; he showed the break down of<br>the different radiative corrections including the elastic tail (internal and external) and the<br>radiative effects from inelastic scattering. He showed a comparison with Ryan's results<br>which had good agreement, though there is some deviation when he used different proton<br>form factors (provided by Moshe).  In order to compare the asymmetry result with data, he<br>needs to do the radiative corrections for the polarized MAID model, which he will continue<br>to work on. More details can be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/pzhu/09092015/asym_20150909.pdf here].	+	Working on packing fraction results and updating the systematic error analysis. Hoping to finalize shortly.
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Working on setting up inelastic radiative corrections procedure for changing angle of g2p.
		+
		+	==10/05/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Ellie, Jie, JP, Jixie <br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations'''
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Showed the reconstructed angle for a loose cut on all of the LHRS g2p production data. The fit is a combination of a linear and exponential fit; this form is suggested from a Jixie ELOG post. For the most part there is good agreement with the data to the fit, and outliers from the fit is a potential criteria for selection of good runs. He used these fits to mimic g2p data and test RC procedures on data at different angles. He found that he could do RC's with small systematic error if he used the same fit for all input spectra. This is not the case for g2p data, so he's working on improving the method.  More details on his slides can be found [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_100516.pdf here].
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Jie
		+	Working on the BPM pedestal issue. He's now considering correlations between all channels in the BPM pedestals. This slightly increases his uncertainty but it is still smaller than Pengjia's result and helps alleviate the triple peak issue.
		+
		+	*Toby
		+	Working on packing fraction results and updating the simulation calculations needed for the cross section ratio input.
		+
		+	*SPIN 2016
		+	Chi-PT calculations of the polarizabilities are still bad. NEED DATA!
		+
		+	==9/21/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Chao, Jie, JP, Jixie, Kalyan, Vince <br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations'''
		+
		+	*Jie
		+	Showed an update on the BPM pedestal calculation. Found a correlation between the pedestals on BPM channels. By using a rotated coordinate system, he can decouple the correlation. This allows for a reduced uncertainty in the BPM pedestal uncertainty contribution to the BPM calculation. More details on his slides can be found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/2016_09_21_plots/yields_update_20160921_new.pdf here]. Will work on finalizing the updating uncertainty calculations and continue with checking the BPM calibration.
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Showed the reconstructed angles for three different asymmetry cuts for both the transverse longitudinal asymmetries. There is a difference between the hot-spot angle in the transverse asymmetry. The RHRS accepts smaller angles in the transverse configuration but this cannot account for the difference in the HRS asymmetries between L/R. More details on his slides can be found [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_092116.pdf here]. He will try different cuts on different variables to try and find a set that gives agreement between the LHRS/RHRS.
		+
		+	**NO MEETING NEXT WEEK BECAUSE OF SPIN 2016
		+
		+	==9/14/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Ellie, Karl, David, Chao, Jie, JP, Jixie, Kalyan, Vince <br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations'''
		+
		+	*David
		+	Showed a statistical analysis between the LHRS and RHRS asymmetries for the 2.2GeV 5T transverse/longitudinal data. Concluded that for long. data the two spectrometers are statistically measuring the same thing. Further work still needs to be done on for the transverse asymmetries. His slides can be found [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/chi2slides_2.pdf here].
		+
		+	*Toby
		+	Showed an updated packing fraction calculation where he replaces fits to the quasi-elastic and quasi-elastic contamination with the Bosted model. His packing fractions are in much better agreement with this method and the consensus is that the fit method was driving the large differences previously seen. He was given suggestions on trying to better quantify the quasi-elastic contamination, including using other models and separating the kinematic regions using acceptance cuts. More details can be found in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/pf_update_091416.pdf here].
		+
		+	*Jie
		+	While on the schedule, he will present next week.
		+
		+	==9/7/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Ellie, Karl,  Chao, Jie, JP <br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations'''
		+
		+	*Chao
		+	Gave an update on the acceptance study of the 5T longitudinal setting. He's currently working on tuning the resolution of the simulation package. He finds that he can match the width of the elastic peak for a small range in theta and phi target but as he increases that range his simulation produces too narrow of a spectra. He is working on fixing this issue. His slides can be found [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/chao/20160907/Chao_WeeklyMeeting_09072016.pdf here].
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Showed a comparison between the 5T longitudinal asymmetries using different acceptance cuts. He demonstrated that within our statistical error bars we do not need to make a bin-centering correction to the asymmetries for the longitudinal setting. He also tried to see if a model accurately described the asymmetry change with angle but was not successful. More details can be found in his slides [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_090716.pdf here].
		+
		+	==8/31/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Ellie, Karl, Jixie, Vince, Jie, Alexandre, JP <br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations'''
		+
		+	*Jie
		+	Gave an update on the BPM pedestal analysis. He showed results from the pedestal analysis of beam trip runs for both the Happex DAQ and HRS DAQ.  HRS DAQ has cleaner pedestals but the HRS DAQ is less precise.  The pedestal shift seen in the HAPPEX DAQ is continuos with time. He will continue to look at the BPM calibration procedure and try and quantify the effect the pedestals have on the BPM uncertainty. More details can be found in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/2016_08_28_plots_eps/yields_update_20160831.pdf here].
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+	*Ryan
		+	Continuing to look at HRS asymmetry angle dependence
		+
		+	==8/24/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Ellie, Chao,  Vince, Jie, Alexandre, JP <br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations'''
		+
		+	*Toby
		+	Showed an update on the packing fraction analysis. He has been able to successfully fit the two elastic peaks (N2 and He4) and quasi-elastic peak to produce packing fraction results. He also presented an alternative calculation to the packing fraction, just using the helium peak from production and a dummy/empty run. His two methods agree at the ~10% level but differ greatly from what Melissa showed previously. Toby will continue to look at his fits and see if there is room for improvement there because there is some fit dependence on the result. One suggestion was to fit the simpler dummy run He4 elastic peak and use those fit parameters in the production runs. More details can be found in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/pf_update.pdf here].
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+	*Ryan
		+	Continuing to look at HRS asymmetry angle dependence
		+
		+	*Jie
		+	Working on understanding Pengjia's BPM code.
		+
		+	==8/17/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Ellie, Chao,  Vince, Jie, Alexandre <br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations'''
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Showed a comparison between asymmetries between LHRS and RHRS for the three 5T settings: 2.2 GeV long/trans and 3.3 trans. Overall there is good agreement between the HRS's, and the biggest disagreement is between the arms at the 2.2 GeV trans setting. Ryan will check that scattering angle dependence of the asymmetries next to see if this can improve the agreement. Currently the RHRS scattering angle reconstruction is not correct. Chao believes this is a coordinate system issue in his code. Slides can be found [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_081716.pdf here].
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+	*Chao
		+	Back at JLab for one year. First thing he will focus on is correcting the scattering angle reconstruction for the RHRS replay. After this he will move onto the acceptance study for the 5T longitudinal setting.
		+
		+	*Jie
		+	Working on understanding Pengjia's BPM code.
		+
		+	*Toby
		+	Working on updating the target polarizations for the HRS's. Found a bug in his code in converting UNIX times. Also developing two parallel methods to determine packing fraction, one using fits and another using simulation.
		+
		+	==8/03/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Vince, Jie, Alexandre <br>
		+
		+	No Presentations.
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Jie
		+
		+	Got code for BPM calibration from Pengjia. Still waiting on some further explanation from Pengjia on the code. He will focus on the 5T settings first in the calibration
		+
		+	*Toby
		+	Working on the g2psim package and using it for calculating the packing fraction. Replayed  RHRS 5T transverse data, and according to Chao it should have final optics.
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Has a working model dilution code.
−	==9/2/2015==	+	==7/27/2016==
−	Present: JP, Min, Kalyan, Melissa <br>	+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Kalyan, JP, Karl <br>
−	By Phone: Vince, Alex, Jie, Chao, Ryan, Toby, Ellie, Karl <br>	+
	'''Feature Presentations:'''		'''Feature Presentations:'''
−	*Melissa	+	*Jie
−	**Gave an update on determining the correction to asymmetries for pion contamination.  <br>Previously, she used the 2.2 GeV, 5T longitudinal setting as an example, for this time <br>she used the transverse configuration, as it has the largest pion contamination.  She <br>modified her method for differentiating between electrons and pions; previously she <br>identified pions as events that do not trigger the Cherenkov, this time she used a cut <br>below the single photo electron peak to select pions.  JP suggested using stricter cuts <br>for selecting pions when determining the pion asymmetry, to make sure it is a clean <br>sample. Although this setting has a large pion contamination, the number of pion<br> events that remain after lead glass cuts are applied is low, so the overall correction <br>is very small. More details can be seen in her slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/melissac/Pion/PionAsym_08_31.pdf here].	+	Working on trying separate two peaks in the BPM pedestal runs.  It does not appear that the two peaks can be filtered based upon the frequency using an FFT. Moving forward he will check how the double peaks affect BPM calibration uncertainty and check the BPM calibration procedure. More details can be found in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/2016_0723_plots/yields_update_20160727.pdf here]
−	*Min	+	*Ryan
−	**Gave an update on acceptance tuning.  She looked at results from the 1.7 GeV setting <br>and found that the height of the peaks is different between data and simulation for <br>different holes in the sieve slit. Looking at the &theta; vs &phi; distribution, she noticed on the<br>positive &theta; side there were fewer holes in simulation than in data, and on the negative <br> &theta; side there were more holes in simulation compared to data. She tried adjusting the<br>aperture cuts by changing the physical location of the Q1, Q2 and septum planes to <br>uncover events that were previously blocked.  After the adjustment, the data/simulation <br>results agreed much better.  She showed a similar procedure for a dilution run and was<br>able to see better agreement between data/simulation after the aperture adjustments <br>were made.  JP/Vince suggested being cautious when adjusting the aperture cuts, as<br> the apertures should be well defined already.  They suggested adjusting things that are<br> less well known first, such as the septum field. More details can be seen in her slides<br>[http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/mhuang/acceptance/09022015.pdf here].	+	Presented raw asymmetries with three difference acceptance cuts to highlight the angle dependence on the asymmetry in the delta-region. Was able to produce a similar trend in models using scattering angles from the data. Going forward will try to find acceptance cuts that select similar numbers of events and see if the ratio between data points is the same as the ratio of model points to do a bin-centering type correction. More details can be found in his slides [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_072716.pdf here]
		+
		+
		+	==7/20/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Alexandre , Kalyan, Karl, Ellie  <br>
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Jie
		+	Looking into 2-peak pedestal issue for the BPMs. Checking to see if the two peaks are at different frequencies and can be separated. If they cannot then the 2-peak pedestals will increase the BPM reconstruction uncertainty at the target to ~3-4mm (from 1-2mm) for runs with the double peak. Previously Pengjia did not consider any RMS value above 2000 in his analysis.
		+
		+	*Toby
		+	Still working on getting the g2p simulation package to match g2p data. Able to now produce elastic peaks in the correct locations to match data. Requesting that someone familiar with g2psim make a post on the wiki detailing the variables in the output of the simulation root tree because they are not straight-forward to understand.
	*Ryan		*Ryan
−	**Working on generating physics quantities using models to eventually compare with data.<br>So far, he has incorporated the MAID2007 and Hall B models. He calculated the <br>hyperfine splitting quantities &Delta;1 and &Delta;2 using the Hall B EG1 model and compared them<br> to the results in C. Carlson's 2006 paper.  His results agreed very well, he only saw a<br> small deviation for &Delta;2 in the lowest Q<sup>2</sup> range.  To check that nothing strange was going <br> on in the low Q<sup>2</sup> range, he calculated &Delta;2 for various small ranges around zero, to ensure<br>that the integration method is well behaved. The Carlson paper also includes calculations <br>using the Simula model, he would like to do a check of this method as well, but is unsure <br>where to find the Simula model.  Since he was able to reproduce the hyperfine splitting <br>result, he is confident in his calculation method; it should be straightforward to calculate <br>other spin structure function integrals.  More details on his method can be found in his <br>slides [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_09215.pdf here].	+	Completed setting up a python version of the radiated model code. Uses MAID/Hall B for the polarized and Bosted for the unpolarized. Does the unpolarized and polarized elastic tail but only uses RADCOR for the inelastic radiating.
		+
		+	==7/13/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Alexandre ,  JP, Karl, Ellie  <br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations:'''
		+
		+	*Jie
		+	Showed a comparison between the BPM pedestals calculated during dedicated pedestal runs and during beam trips. The two methods agree, so Jie is moving forward with the beam trip method to fill in gaps for BPM pedestal calculations. His next step is to move onto checking the BPM calibration. More details can be found in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/2016_0710_plots/yields_update_20160713.pdf here]
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
	*Toby		*Toby
−	**Showed an update on his acceptance/scattering angle study.  He applied cuts of varying<br>strictness on the reconstructed &theta; vs &phi; distribution at the target.  He then calculated the <br>real scattering angle before/after scattering for each cut.  Using these scattering angles <br> as inputs for the Bosted model he was able to calculate the XS and compare it to data.<br>He showed the comparison between data/Bosted model for each acceptance cut.  He <br>hoped that the more extreme acceptance cuts on the data would flatten the yield <br>distribution, but it actually just enhanced the sawtooth pattern.  JP questioned why the <br>Bosted prediction for one momentum bin (the green one) was so much lower than the<br> neighboring ones.  Toby said the only input that goes into the model is the scattering angle,<br> so it must be considerably different for this momentum setting. He also commented that<br>the model prediction is scaled to match the data, so the scaling enhances the jump in<br>the model.  More details on his acceptance cuts and method can be found in his slides<br>[http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/acceptance_scatangle.pdf here].	+	Still working on getting the g2p simulation package to match g2p data. This will be used for calculating the packing fraction
		+	*Ryan
		+	Working on producing radiated models to compare to the g2p data.
−	==8/26/2015==
−	Present: Jixie, Alex, Min, Kalyan, JP, Chao, Melissa <br>	+	==7/6/2016==
−	By Phone: Vince, Jie, Ryan, Toby, Karl <br>	+
		+	Present: Ryan, Jie, Kalyan, JP, Karl, Ellie  <br>
		+
		+	Verbal Updates:
		+
		+	*Jie
		+	Working on comparing pedestal values from dedicated pedestal runs and from beam-trip's. He's mostly found agreement and is working to settle the few outliers. After this he is moving onto to checking the BPM calibration.
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Working on setting up radiated models to compare with the radiated data asymmetries.
		+
		+
		+	==6/29/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Kalyan,  JP, Karl, Ellie  <br>
	'''Feature Presentations:'''		'''Feature Presentations:'''
−	*Chao	+	*Jie
−	**Gave an update on optics studies. Previously, he showed a comparison between optics data <br>and simulation where he cut on individual sieve holes.  For this week, he included a cut on y <br>and dp that he didn't include previously.  In the plot of &theta; vs y, JP pointed out that there were <br>additional tails on some sieve holes, Chao says these tails go away when the &phi; cut is <br>included. He showed a 2D plot of &theta; vs &phi;, along with the 1D projection of these variables. JP<br>commented that the data is more smeared out than the simulation, so it is difficult to compare <br>data with simulation results.  It's possible that some of the smearing comes from events that <br>punch through the sieve slit and are not being cut out (the simulation currently assumes these <br>events are stopped by the sieve). Looking at the center hole, the data/simulation agree <br>reasonably well, but the agreement gets worse for holes on the edge of the sieve slit.  Chao<br>will continue to look into this. More details can be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/chao/20150826/Chao_WeeklyMeeting_08262015.pdf here].	+	Gave an update on the BPM pedestal issues. In his slides he shows the pedestal histograms to demonstrate that the pedestal value is really shifting with time. Some pedestal's also exhibit a multi-peak structure, which ultimately will effect the uncertainty of the BPM calibration. He also showed the effect of using different BPM pedestal values for different runs and effects the BPM reconstruction. The resulting BPM position change is much larger than simulation would predict indicating that again that the BPM pedestal value is really changing with time. Going forward he will look to determine an accurate BPM uncertainty from the fluctuating pedestal values. More details on his slides can be seen [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/2016_0627_plots/yields_update_20160629.pdf here].
−	**He also mentioned that ~1 month ago he reported a problem with the [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/chao/20150708/Chao_WeeklyMeeting_07082015.pdf BPM simulation].<br>He found it was actually a problem with the simulation itself, which has now been updated <br> to correct the problem.	+
		+	Verbal Updates:
−	'''General Discussion:'''	+	*Toby
−	*Pengjia has submitted his BPM NIM paper.	+	Working on updating Melissa's packing fraction code to use simulation to match the quasi-elastic peak, instead of relying on fits because the packing fraction result is highly-sensitive to the fit parameters.
		+	*Ryan
		+	Working on raw asymmetries and comparing them with Toby to make sure they agree.
−	==8/19/2015==	+	*Vince
		+	Has updated ChiPT calculations that he will send out over the mailing list.
−	Present: Chao, Jie, Min, Jixie, Kalyan, Melissa <br>	+
−	By Phone: Vince, Ryan, Toby, Karl, Pengjia <br>	+	==6/22/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Alex, Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Kalyan  <br>
	'''Feature Presentations:'''		'''Feature Presentations:'''
−	*Melissa	+	*Toby
−	**Showed a method for determining the correction to asymmetries for pion contamination. The <br>measured asymmetry can be written in terms of the electron and pion asymmetries, multiplied <br>by the fraction of events of that particle. To differentiate between electrons and pions, a cut is<br>made on events that trigger the Cherenkov detector (electrons) and events that do not trigger<br>the Cherenkov (pions). Kalyan commented that this method of selecting pions may be too blind,<br> and suggested making a 2D cut on E/p vs Cherenkov instead.  To determine the fraction of<br>electrons/pions, "good event" cuts are applied (loose acceptance cuts, single track events and<br>pion rejector cuts) and the number of electrons/pions that survive the cuts are counted.  Although<br>the pion asymmetry is much larger than the electron asymmetry, the number of residual pions<br>is very small, so the overall correction is small.  For this example the 2.2 GeV, 5T longitudinal<br>setting was used, but the correction may be larger for the 5T transverse settings, which she <br>will do next. More details can be seen in her slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/melissac/Pion/PionAsym_08_19.pdf here].	+	Received Melissa's packing fraction code. Found that there is now a difference in the nu histograms for the elastic runs when compared to what Melissa used in her analysis. Melissa's tech-note shows only a single elastic peak, but new root-files have both a elastic nitrogen and helium peak. The two peaks are separated by about 5 MeV at E0 = 2.2 GeV. The existence of an additional peak effects the applicability of Melissa's fitting routines to these new root-files. Toby will contact Melissa and see what she can provide. Slides are [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/elasticyield_talk.pdf here].
−	*Min	+	Verbal Updates:
−	**Gave an update on acceptance studies.  She used the 1.7 GeV, 2.5T setting (with 3rd septum <br>configuration) to test the acceptance cuts using the yield ratio of data to simulation.  She <br>showed a plot of target &theta; vs &phi; for both data and simulation, and applied a graphical cut to get<br>rid of events on the edges.  Looking at the resulting 1D plots shows reasonable agreement<br>between &theta; and &phi;.  Vince pointed out that there seems to be some additional structure in the<br>dp distribution, and suggested expanding the &delta; cut out to &pm; 4% to see if there is more <br>hidden structure.  Min said she has seen this in other settings as well and will look into it.  She<br>also tried adjusting the cuts on &theta;, &phi; and &delta; and looked at how the ratio of yields from data/<br>simulation changed; the ratio starts to drop off as the cuts get wider.  Next she will work on<br>calculating the yields using W bins.  More details can be seen in her slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/mhuang/acceptance/08192015.pdf here].	+
		+	*Jie
		+	Jie is still talking with Pengjia over the BPM pedestal issue. He hopes to have slides for next week's meeting.
−	==8/12/2015==	+	*Ryan
		+	Ed Folts confirmed the presence of helium bags in the septum bores and local dump box. In contact with Jessie Butler to find Ed's old pictures of the g2p target platform. Assuming helium is present in radiation thicknesses after scattering. Will update if there is any change. Tech-note with the radiation lengths can be found [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/g2p_radlengths.pdf here]
−	Present: Jie, Chao, Kalyan, Min, Jixie, Melissa <br>	+
−	By Phone: Pengjia, Ryan, Toby, Karl, Ellie, Alex <br>	+	==6/15/2016==
		+
		+	Present: JP, Karl, Alex, Ryan, Toby, Chao, Jie, Vince, Ellie, Xiaochao, Kalyan  <br>
		+
		+	No presentations. Just verbal updated
		+
		+	*Jie
		+	Jie gave a little more detail on the carbon cover from last week's slides. The carbon cover is a porous carbon sponge added to the BPM to help with radiation. This in itself shouldn't effect the pedestal but opening up the BPM to install it could have an effect. It's possible the pedestal change is also related to configuration changes in the target magnetic field. Jie will show more at meeting next week.
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Confirmed from Chao that DP is not corrected for ELOSS. Still waiting to hear back from Ed Folts on g2p helium bags.
		+
		+	*Toby
		+	Getting Melissa's packing fraction code this week. Will use it to update packing fraction calculations.
		+
		+
		+	==6/8/2016==
		+
		+	Present: JP, Karl, Alex, Ryan, Toby, Chao, Jie, Vince, Ellie  <br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations:'''
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Gave an update on the radiation length calculation. He checked the energy loss calculation people did before and found out that we did not use the He bag during the experiment but before people built the He bag in the simulation. However the difference between He and air should not cause serious problem for us. More details can be seen in his slides [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_060816.pdf here].
		+
		+	*Jie
		+	Gave an update on the beam position problem. He worked together with Pengjia on this problem. The bpm database is updated so that the beam current dependence of the BPM is removed. Another problem is that the reported beam position would jump suddenly within the same momentum setting. Pengjia and he guess the pedestal of the BPM might be a possible reason. And between the two run they compared, a carbon cover was added which might influence the pedestal. So they did some study of the BPM pedestal values. The current cut Pengjia used before to select no-beam events is replaced by a more tight one. However, the results do not change much. More details can be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/2016_0608_pedstal/yields_update_20160608.pdf here].
		+
		+
		+	==5/25/2016==
		+
		+	Present: JP, Alex, Ryan, Toby, Chao, Jie, Vince, Ellie <br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations:'''
		+
		+	*Toby
		+	Gave an update of his study on the scattering angle. The problem he mentioned on 5/11 has been solved. Both of the formulas are correct. However, he found that the central scattering angle jumped within one momentum setting for more than 3 deg. Chao mentioned that his calculation result does not show this behavior and they will discuss this offline. More details can be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/scatangle_talk_5.25.16.pdf here].
		+
		+
		+	==5/18/2016==
		+
		+	Present: JP, Karl, Alex, Ryan, Toby, Chao, Jie, Vince, Ellie  <br>
	'''Feature Presentations:'''		'''Feature Presentations:'''
	*Chao		*Chao
−	**Gave an update on optics studies.  Previously, Min has shown comparisons of data/simulation<br> where she looked at different columns of sieve holes.  Chao continued this study by cutting on <br>individual sieve holes. Looking at the center sieve hole, the &phi; distribution looks reasonable, but <br>the &theta; distribution has some issues.  Specifically, the data is wider on the left side (negative &theta;) <br>than the simulation. He showed results for several sieve holes, including one that was in the <br>row as the center hole, but in the farthest column on the left side of the sieve slit. In this case <br>the &theta; distribution had similar width for both data and simulation, but the height of the simulation<br> distribution was larger.  This may suggest that something is wrong with the acceptance in the <br>simulation.  The problem with &theta; seems to be systematic; for most of the sieve holes there are <br>more events on the left side of the data than in the simulation. Kalyan asked whether the <br>thickness of the sieve slit was taken into account, Chao says it was included in the simulation <br>and optimizer.  Jixie suggested comparing the dp distributions for each sieve hole. More details <br>can be seen in Chao's slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/chao/20150812/Chao_WeeklyMeeting_08122015.pdf here].	+	Gave an update of the acceptance study. He used the elastic scattering data to calibrate the resolution of the simulation. He found that the simulation package does not treat the resolution of the beam position properly. Thus the simulation package is updated to generate the events according to the beam profile. With this new update, the resolution of the simulation agrees with the data. More details can be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/chao/20160518/Chao_WeeklyMeeting_05182016.pdf here].
−	==7/29/2015==	+	==5/11/2016==
−	Present: Chao, Min, JP, Melissa <br>	+	Present: JP, Karl, Alex, Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Ellie  <br>
−	By Phone: Alex, Pengjia <br>	+
	'''Feature Presentations:'''		'''Feature Presentations:'''
−	*Min	+	*Toby
−	**Gave an update on acceptance studies.  Previously, Chao showed a correction for the beam<br>position in g2psim.  Min checked this correction by looking at optics runs.  On the data she <br>applied a cut on dp (to select elastic events) and on the focal plane (to get rid of junk <br> events).  On the simulation, only an aperture cut was applied. She compared the data and<br>simulation results for &theta; and &phi; both before and after drifting from the sieve slit to the target.<br>The effect of the target field on &theta; is not very large, though there is a shift down in angle.<br>However, the shape of the &theta; distribution is different between data and simulation.  The<br>effect of the target field on &phi; is significant; it's not clear why this is the case.  To try to<br>determine the reason for the discrepancies, she applied a cut along each column of sieve<br>slit holes in &phi; and compared the data and simulation results for &theta;,&phi; and dp.  Column 2<br>seems to have the best agreement (for dp), columns 1 and 2 have a shift while columns<br>3-6 have a difference in width.  Chao suggested also cutting along each row of sieve slit<br>holes to better study the effect of the drift on &phi;.  Min will work on identifying the differences<br>between data and simulation, specifically whether the boundaries are different between<br>the two. More details can be seen in her slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/mhuang/07272015/07292015.pdf here].	+	Gave an update of the scattering angle calculation. He used two formulas from Pengjia and Chao to calculate the scattering angle and suggests that the results do not agree. People suggests that this two methods are equivalent and we should just use one of them. More details can be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/scatangle_talk_5.11.16.pdf here].
		+	*Ryan
		+	Gave an update of his study of the scattering angle dependence of the cross-section. He used the radiated Bosted model and calculated the cross-sections with three different scattering angle. And the results shows ~20% difference. More details can be seen in his slides [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_051116.pdf here].
−	==7/22/2015==	+	*Jie
		+	Gave an update on his study of the yield drift problem. He is still working together with Pengjia to correct the beam current dependence of the beam position. He summarized the beam current distribution for all production runs and found that ~90% of our data was taken with current less than 50 nA, where the beam position need to be corrected. He also studied the "sudden jump" of the beam position which means that the BPMA and BPMB readout did not changed much but the reported beam position changed a lot. It probably could be explained by the pedestal change but still need more study. More details can be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/2016_0508_plots/yields_update_20160510.pdf here].
−	Present: JP, Min, Jixie, Melissa <br>	+
−	By Phone: Alex, Ryan, Toby, Ellie, Karl, Pengjia <br>	+	==4/20/2016==
		+
		+	Present: JP, Karl, Alex, Chao, Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Ellie  <br>
	'''Feature Presentations:'''		'''Feature Presentations:'''
−	*Melissa	+	*Ryan
−	**Showed various checks for packing fraction runs that have large discrepancies, including <br>beam position, beam energy, spectrometer central momentum setting, septum current, and<br>the location of anneals.  For both the 2.2 and 1.1 GeV settings, there are significant shifts in <br>the x and y beam position (2mm or more).  She showed the average and standard deviation <br> of epics readings for the LHRS septum current for each run. For several runs, there are small <br>number of epics readings that drift from the average current.  It's not clear if this is the <br>current is actually changing or if it is a readout problem. She will look into the yield vs time<br>to try to determine this.  JP suggested making a raster cut on the center of the beam to get<br> rid of any potential scraping.  Pengjia says there is a way to cut on raster size, but there will<br> be an additional BPM uncertainty.  Melissa will discuss this more offline with Pengjia. More<br>details can be seen in her slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/melissac/Elastic/Elastic_07_22.pdf here].	+	Gave an final update of the nitrogen cross-section study of the saGDH experiment. The radiative correction is done and the uncertainty carry-over from the elastic tail analysis is 1.5%. The radiative correction is calculated in two different way: the classic unfolding and the ratio of un-radiated and radiated Bosted model. He also did a bin center correction and compared the result with Vince's calculation. Two methods agrees at a 1-2% level. The radiative corrected cross-section for each kinematics setting is summarized in his slides and he will prepare a tech note for the analysis. More details can be seen in his slides [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_042016.pdf here].
−	*Pengjia
−	**Gave an update on calculating asymmetries/cross sections using the MAID model.  This time, <br>he used the Bosted model to get the unpolarized cross sections for the proton.  Using unradiated <br>cross section models, he still saw a factor of 6 difference when compared with data.  Ryan also <br>calculated asymmetries using unradiated models, and the results were consistent with Pengjia's, <br>so it seems the radiative effects contribute significantly to the factor of 6 difference.  More <br>details can be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/pzhu/07222015/MAID_update_20150722.pdf here].
		+	==4/13/2016==
−	==7/15/2015==	+	Present: Karl, Chao, Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Ellie  <br>
−	Present: JP, Min, Chao, Jixie, Melissa <br>	+	'''Feature Presentations:'''
−	By Phone: Ryan, Toby, Ellie, Karl, Vince, Pengjia <br>	+
		+	*Jie
		+	Gave an update on his study of the yield drift problem. Last time he showed some plots which indicates that the beam position might not be accurate and he did some study on this problem. He found out that the BPM readout shows some linear relations with the beam current. After carefully check the data, it seems that only the BPM B have this correlation. And this problem could be found in all beam energy settings. The uncertainty of beam position is very large if this problem is not corrected. More details can be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/2016_0404_beamcurrent_plots/yields_update_2016_04_13.pdf here].
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Gave an correction to his presentation on last week. He mentioned there was a mistake when he compared the formulation for the full internal bremsstrahlung tail and the angle-peaking approximation. And the results agree after the mistake was corrected. More details can be seen in his slides [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_041316.pdf here].
		+
		+
		+	==4/6/2016==
		+
		+	Present: JP, Karl, Chao, Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Ellie  <br>
	'''Feature Presentations:'''		'''Feature Presentations:'''
−	*Chao	+	*Ryan
−	**Doing a check of simulation/data results for the 2.2 GeV, longitudinal setting in order <br>to check that the optics calibration matrix will work for all momentum settings (not <br>just elastic). He showed a comparison for several different momentum settings.<br>  Vince suggested simulating more events, since the statistics start to drop off for <br>lower momentum settings. In general, the data is broader then the result from<br>simulation. In the &theta; distribution, the "tails" seen in the data are not symmetric. JP<br> suggested carefully selecting cuts to remove any background from the data to <br>ensure a good comparison with simulation. More details can be seen in his <br>slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/chao/20150715/Chao_WeeklyMeeting_07152015.pdf here].	+	Gave an update on his radiative correction study. He already studied the uncertainty for the elastic tail and he continued his study with the inelastic radiative correction. He explained how the angle approximation was applied in the internal bremsstrahlung. There is an equivalent correction in the angel approximation which is dropping the soft photons compare with doing a full integration. Difference between these two calculation is 5-10% for proton. He is still working on applying the calculation to other nuclei like Nitrogen. More details can be seen in his slides [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_040616.pdf here].
−	*Pengjia	+	*Toby
−	**More discussion on Pengjia's [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/pzhu/07082015/MAID_update_20150708.pdf slides] from last week.  Pengjia has seen a factor of <br>six difference between his asymmetry calculated from data compared to the <br>asymmetry determined using the MAID model. Ryan did not see this factor of six <br>in his study, but in addition to using radiated XS models, he is using a combination <br>of the Bosted and MAID models (Pengjia is using just the MAID model). Karl <br>commented that the XS from MAID is not very good for our kinematics. Pengjia <br>also showed an estimated NH3 XS. JP commented that it was surprising that the <br>delta peak wasn't visible. Pengjia will look into this for next time.	+	Gave an update on the his calculation of the asymmetry and cross-section. He applied the dilution factor calculated from the data to the asymmetry calculation. On the other side, he also applied the radiative correction factor calculated from the MAID model to the asymmetry calculation. He then applied the same factors to the cross-section calculation and got the cross-section and cross-section differences. The dilution seems not continuous and JP suggests to do a deeper study for each momentum in the longitudinal setting to understand what is the reason, for example the yield problem studied by Jie. More details can be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/asym_xs.pdff here].
−	==7/8/2015==	+	==3/23/2016==
−	Present: JP, Min, Chao, Melissa <br>	+	Present: JP, Karl, Chao, Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Ellie  <br>
−	By Phone: Toby, Vince <br>	+
	'''Feature Presentations:'''		'''Feature Presentations:'''
−	*Pengjia	+	*Jie
−	**Working on comparing asymmetries determined from MAID to those calculated from <br>data; last time he showed a factor of 6 difference between the two results. This <br>time, he showed two different methods for calculating the differential XS from the <br>virtual photon XS. The first method calculates the differential XS directly from <br>the virtual photon XS, and the second method calculates the differential XS using <br>F<sub>1</sub>, F<sub>2</sub>, g<sub>1</sub> and g<sub>2</sub>. He also showed two different methods for calculating the <br>asymmetry from the virtual photon XS; one method uses A<sub>1</sub> and A<sub>2</sub>, while the other <br>is calculated from the virtual photon XS. There was a discrepancy between the two <br>methods, but he found that there was actually a mistake in one of the equations. <br>While the results from the two methods agree with each other, they are still a factor <br>of 6 larger than the results from data. More details can be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/pzhu/07082015/MAID_update_20150708.pdf here].	+	Gave an update on his study of the yield drift problem. He continued his study with dilution runs. The method he used is similar as what he did for the production runs. He made a 6mm radius circle cut and compare the simulation result with the data. There are a few runs which were measured with beam current less than 50nA. After discussion with Pengjia, Jie mentioned that those runs' BPM readout might not be accurate since the BPM is calibrated at 50nA~100nA. He will do further study together with Pengjia to understand this effect. More details can be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/2016_03_22_plots/yields_update_2016_03_23.pdf here].
		+
		+
		+	==3/9/2016==
		+
		+	Present: JP, Karl, Chao, Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Ellie  <br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations:'''
	*Toby		*Toby
−	**Showed an update of his scattering angle study for model reconstruction. He is <br>using BPM and optics data to determine the scattering angle.  He showed an example <br>of the calculated scattering angle; JP questioned whether the range was really from <br>0-16 deg. Toby pointed out that there really aren't many events at the boundaries, <br>the distribution is peaked between 4.5-9 deg.  He then uses this scattering angle as<br>input for the Bosted model.  At low &nu; the simulation results match reasonably well<br>with the data, but the discrepancy starts to become larger as &nu; increases. He took <br>a closer look at the reconstructed scattering angle for each central momentum, and <br>found that a second peak is visible for smaller values of p0. If this second peak was <br>real, the simulation should recreate the data, so this could suggest a problem with <br>the reconstruction. However, Chao pointed out that, for this energy setting, the optics <br>calibration is not complete (currently using the longitudinal optics matrix), so the <br>reconstructed &theta; and &phi; may not be correct yet.  For next time, Toby will test this <br>analysis using the 1.7 GeV setting, which has calibrated optics. More details can <br> be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/scatangle_talk.pdf here].	+	Gave an update on the dilution study. He summarized the dilution calculation for the 2.2GeV 5T transverse settings. He also used the dilution result to calculate the asymmetry for this setting. The radiative correction was considered in the calculation. And he concluded that the uncertainty of the calculation is dominated by the packing fraction uncertainty. More details can be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/asymtalk_030916.pdf here].
−	*Melissa	+	*Ryan
−	**Gave a summary of packing fraction analysis. For some settings, the variation in the <br>yields (and P<sub>f</sub>) is due to a fluctuation in the beam position. This will hopefully be<br>resolved by Jie's beam position/acceptance study.  For the 2.2 GeV, 2.5T transverse setting<br> there is also an issue of a shift in &nu; between runs. For the 1.1 GeV, 2.5T transverse <br>setting, the yields vary depending on the beam current used for each run.  JP suggested <br>a few things to check as the possible cause for these discrepancies including drift in the <br>BCM calibration, anneals of the target material, drift in field (HRS or septum), etc.  She <br>has posted a technote draft [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/melissac/Technotes/PF_technote_draft.pdf here], feedback would be appreciated. More details can be seen in her slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/melissac/Elastic/Elastic_07_08.pdf here].	+	Gave an update on his cross-section analysis of the small angle GDH data. Based on the discussion from previous meetings, he checked the uncertainty of the elastic tail. The calculation includes three different sources: the correction factor representing higher order virtual photon diagrams, bremsstrahlung and multiple photon corrections. For the multiple photon corrections, he mentioned that G.Miller has an alternative multiple photon correction result. He applied the calculation to the saGDH data and it seems that the Miller multiple photon result is better representation of saGDH elastic tails. More details can be seen in his slides [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_030916.pdf here].
−	*Min	+	*Jie
−	**Gave an update on her acceptance study. Last time, she showed that the simulation results <br>are more narrow than the data. For this time, she tried cutting on just the center hole, <br>and found that the dp distribution from data better matched the simulation.  JP suggested <br>cutting on each of the different holes individually to determine which hole causes the dp <br>distribution to be wider. More details can be seen in her slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/mhuang/07082015/07062015.pdf here].	+	Gave an update on his study of the yield drift problem. He and Pengjia fixed the problem in the raster size calculation. He then made some cuts on the raster size to remove the boundary effect. He mentioned some of the runs had hot spot and was able to be corrected by the raster cut. He also summarized the yield spread with raster cuts for all kinematic settings. More details can be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/jie/2016_03_01_raster_plots/yields_update_2016_03_09.pdf here].
		+
		+
		+	==2/24/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Karl, Chao, Ryan, Toby, Min, Ellie, Jie <br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations:'''
		+
		+	*Toby
		+	Gave an update on the dilution study. He need the scattering angle to calculate the scaling factor between the carbon and nitrogen. However, his study suggests that the scattering angle calculated for the carbon target is larger than the production target. The simulation shows opposite result which is expected to be reasonable from geometries. People suggests Chao to check the scattering angle calculation in the optics package. More details can be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/scatangle_dilution_022416.pdf here].
		+
		+
		+	==2/17/2016==
		+
		+	Present: JP, Jixie, Chao, Ryan, Min, Ellie, Jie  <br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations:'''
	*Chao		*Chao
−	**Gave an update on optics analysis, currently checking whether simulation results match <br>with data, starting with optics data. First he checked whether the geometry was correct, <br>some deviation was found in the recent optics meeting. The position of the BPMs is hard-<br>coded into the simulation, and the drifting algorithm is used to drift the electrons <br>backward to the BPMs to simulate the readout of BPM A and B. He compared the &theta; <br>distribution before drifting in the target field using a fixed and non-fixed BPM location. <br>The results using a fixed BPM match well with the data.  He is currently working on <br>checking this for all momentum settings, and will follow up with Pengjia about the BPM <br>problem. More details can be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/chao/20150708/Chao_WeeklyMeeting_07082015.pdf here].	+	Gave an update on the optics study. He finished the matrix recalibration on right arm. The database is updated and is ready to use. The RMS values for angle and momentum calibration are summarized in his presentation. JP and Jixie has some concern about the broken septa seems to cause worse effect on left arm comparing with right arm. They suggested to check this more carefully. More details can be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/chao/20160217/Chao_WeeklyMeeting_02172016.pdf here].
		+	*Ryan
		+	Gave an update on his cross-section analysis of the small angle GDH data. Based on the discussion from the last week's meeting, he removed the extrapolation part in RADCON and then test the code with some test cross-sections from Pbosted Model. There is no problem in this case. So he compared the Pbosted model with saGDH data at large <math>\nu</math>. He is waiting for the response from Vince about the uncertainty of the saGDH cross-section at large <math>\nu</math>. More details can be seen in his slides [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_021716.pdf here].
−	==7/1/2015==
−	Present: Chao, Vince, Jie, JP, Min, Melissa <br>	+	==2/10/2016==
−	By Phone: Pengjia <br>	+
		+	Present: JP, Karl, Alex, Jixie, Toby, Chao, Ryan, Min, Ellie, Vince  <br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations:'''
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Gave an update on his cross-section analysis of the small angle GDH data. He is dealing the problem that after doing the tail subtraction and radiative correction the cross sections go negative at high <math>\nu</math>. He did a refit of the few low <math>Q^2</math> points using a charge form factor fit. The results still deviated from the PBosted model at high <math>\nu</math>. However, JP and Karl suggests that the code RADCOR code should not give negative cross section result. There might be some problems in the extrapolation part. Karl suggests to check the input data to see if there are constrains at the high <math>\nu</math> region. More details can be seen in his slides [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_021016.pdf here].
		+
		+
		+	==2/3/2016==
		+
		+	Present: JP, Karl, Alex, Jixie, Toby, Jie, Chao, Ryan, Ellie, Vince  <br>
	'''Feature Presentations:'''		'''Feature Presentations:'''
	*Min		*Min
−	**Gave an update on acceptance studies. She showed a summary table of each energy <br>setting and septum configuration.  There hasn't been any problems in the 2.2 GeV, 5T <br>longitudinal and 1.7 GeV, 2.5T transverse settings, but some settings (2.2 GeV, 2.5T <br> transverse, 1.2 GeV, 2.5T transverse and 2.2 GeV, 5T transverse) have a discrepancy <br>in the focal plane between data and simulation. She compared the data divided by the <br>Mott XS to the simulation results without XS, and found that the simulation results <br>of &theta; and &phi; are narrower then the data. JP commented that, while including the Mott<br>XS might change the shape of the distribution, it shouldn't change the boundary.  She <br>work on figuring out the cause for this discrepancy before calculating the acceptance. <br>More details can be seen in her slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/mhuang/07012015/07012015.pdf here].	+	Gave an update on her acceptance study. She continued to compare the simulation result with data.  Since the optics database is updated with the vertical beam position correction. The result suggests that the delta distribution is improved however the phi distribution still shows large discrepancy. She used this result to calculate the acceptance factor and applied it to the cross-section calculation. The result shows a factor of two difference. JP suggests that the acceptance calculated from the compare between the simulation and the data could still be influenced by the cross-section difference at small scattering angle. More details can be seen in her slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/mhuang/acceptance/02032016.pdf here].
−	*Pengjia	+	*Toby
−	**Comparing asymmetries determined from the MAID model to those calculated from data.<br>Last time he showed a factor of 6 difference between the two results.  He determined the <br>scattering angle and Q<sup>2</sup> by fitting the data and compared them to the quantities calculated <br>from MAID.  He also showed the results of calculating the quantities g<sub>1</sub>, g<sub>2</sub>, F<sub>1</sub>, F<sub>2</sub>, A<sub>L</sub>, A<sub>T</sub>,<br> dXS<sub>L</sub>, dXS<sub>T</sub>, XS<sub>tot</sub> andXS<sub>mott</sub> using MAID. He hasn't included radiative corrections in his <br>calculations, but this probably won't account for the factor of 6. More details can be seen <br>in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/pzhu/07012015/MAID_20150701.pdf here].	+	His presentation on 1/12 is reviewed. JP mentioned his concern about the uncertainty propagation. Toby is going to check it again and update his tech note about it.
		+	'''General Discussion:'''
		+
		+	*The replay package is restored on the work disk.
		+	*Toby will talk to Melissa and take over her packing fraction study.
		+
		+
		+	==1/26/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Jixie, JP <br>
		+	By Phone: Jie, Chao, Ryan, Ellie  <br>
		+
		+	'''General Discussion:'''
		+
		+	*The analysis meeting will be moved back to '''10 am Wednesday''' starting from next week.
		+	*There is no meeting room available thus everyone will join by bluejeans. The meeting ID is 4828802914.
		+
		+
		+	==1/12/2016==
		+
		+	Present: Melissa, Jixie <br>
		+	By Phone: Jie, Chao, Ryan, Toby, Ellie  <br>
		+
		+	'''Feature Presentations:'''
		+
		+	*Ryan
		+	Gave an update on his cross-section analysis of the small angle GDH data. yield study using simulation. He is working on the problem that after doing the tail subtraction and running the inelastic Radiative Correction code the fully corrected cross sections go negative at high <math>\nu</math>. To solve this, he did a fit on the Nitrogen form factor. During the fitting, two models is considered: the oscillator model and the Fermi Model and the Fermi Model is proved to be better. He will complete the calculation of the elastic tail by using the form factor in a few weeks. More details can be seen in his slides [https://userweb.jlab.org/~rbziel/Weekly_Meetings/g2p_011216.pdf here].
		+
		+	*Toby
		+	Gave an review on the polarization uncertainty estimation. He claimed that the reason of the small uncertainties for the target polarization is because we took large amount of TE for each material. Thus the uncertainty of the calibration constant is reduced by average. Jixie suggests that the error propagation still need to be carefully checked. More details can be seen in his slides [http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/g2p/collaborators/toby/g2p%20meetings/targunc.pdf here]
		+
		+	'''General Discussion:'''
		+
		+	*Chao updated his optics technical note.
		+	*There is no meeting next week due to the Hall A collaboration meeting.
		+
		+
		+	----
		+	==Jul-Dec 2015==
		+	[[Minutes_Jul2015_to_Dec2015]]
	----		----
−	==Jan-June 2015==	+	==Jan-Jun 2015==
	[[Minutes_Jan2015_to_June2015]]		[[Minutes_Jan2015_to_June2015]]
	----		----
−	==July-Dec 2014==	+	==Jul-Dec 2014==
	[[Minutes_July2014_to_Dec2014]]		[[Minutes_July2014_to_Dec2014]]
	----		----
−	==Jan-June 2014==	+	==Jan-Jun 2014==
	[[Minutes_Jan2014_to_June2014]]		[[Minutes_Jan2014_to_June2014]]
	----		----
−	==June-Dec 2013==	+	==Jun-Dec 2013==
	[[Minutes_June2013_to_Dec2013]]		[[Minutes_June2013_to_Dec2013]]
	----		----
Line 290:		Line 1,405:
	----		----
−	==Jan-March 2012==	+	==Jan-Mar 2012==
	[[Minutes_Jan2012_to_Mar2012]]		[[Minutes_Jan2012_to_Mar2012]]
	----		----
−	==July-Dec 2011==	+	==Jul-Dec 2011==
	[[Minutes_July2011_to_Dec_2011]]		[[Minutes_July2011_to_Dec_2011]]
	----		----
−	==Jan-June 2011==	+	==Jan-Jun 2011==
	[[Minutes_Jan2011_to_June_2011]]		[[Minutes_Jan2011_to_June_2011]]
	----		----

---

Latest revision as of 11:57, 29 July 2021

Minutes of the weekly analysis meetings

---

Agenda

07/29/2021

Present: JP, David

• David showed a zoomed in plot of the Q^6 Delta_LT scaling agreed upon last week, and JP and David both agreed that this made the high point look unnecessarily bad. David agreed to make a similar version of the Q^4 plot to decide between next week, and include the Q^6 plot in the current paper draft.
• David mentioned that he found Chao's internal presentation of an elastic study which yielded a contribution to the acceptance systematic of 4%. JP commented this was likely to be the dominating systematic for the acceptance and suggested that David use this to obtain a back of the napkin calculation of the XS systematic. JP also suggested that this systematic could be representative of our overall uncertainty in the 1.15 scaling to match the g2p data to the Bosted model, and that we could potentially quote this number to anyone who raises issue with the scaling factor.
• There was a brief discussion of the Drechsel paper JP found, he suggested Karl would probably have access and that the discussion in that paper would likely feed what we should say about d2 in our paper.
• David mentioned that he has been working this week on making a draft of the paper with Karl's comments from last week and JP's comments from this week, and would try to finish in the next day or two to send to the Spokespeople.
• David will be traveling next week but available for a meeting, JP suggested if the draft was sent out this week it would be a good time for a short meeting for Karl, JP, and any others to share their current thoughts and comments on that iteration of the draft.

07/22/2021

Present: Alexandre, JP, Karl, David

• David showed a number of slides showing delta_LT multiplied by various powers of Q2. We commented that Drecschel shows Q6/M2 delta_LT in his paper. Also the 2004 E94010 polarizabilities showed the same quantitty. So there is precedent for this. David will produce a zoomed version of the plot. He also showed delta_LT/gamma_0, although he has low confidence in the present error bars. He will revisit and he and Karl will try to add RSS data, Maid and pdfs to see if the transition to the predicted scaling at very large Q2 is at all visible at this very low Q2.
• JP Asked David to look at threshold again, and to try to dig out Chao's evaluation of the acceptance uncertainty from the elog and old wiki presentations.
• Alexandre reminded that there is a lot of good old information in the elog : https://hallaweb.jlab.org/dvcslog/g2p/
• We switched the weekly meeting time to 10:30am on Thursdays.
• Karl will be on travel next week, but expects to be available for the weekly meeting.

05/01/2019

Present: JP, Karl, David Feature Presentations :

• David

Showed a number of slides building up the 2.5T 2.2GeV dilution one step at a time to try and analyze any outstanding issues. These plots showed severe edge effects from the momentum settings on all run types. J.P. and Karl suggested fixing this by doing a fit to one of the yield, and then using an offending momentum setting to find a dp correction to the fit and apply it everywhere. The plots also showed several momentum settings where the centroid appeared to be shifted, David promised to do some detective work to try and figure out why.

Verbal Updates:

None

12/06/2018

Present: Karl, Chao, David Feature Presentations : None. Verbal Updates:

• David

Discussed a final issue with Chao leading to simulated peaks being smeared too wide, because of a smearing parameter in the input file being too big. Said he should have final 5T Longitudinal packing fractions next week, and is prepared to have final 2.5T 2.2GeV packing fractions once Snake Model is complete. Also showed a plot of Gamma 2 indicating that the cost to using just the Material 8 data for the 2.2GeV 2.5T would be costly, more than doubling the total error bar and changing the central value slightly, highlighting the need to use one of the other methods discussed to complete the analysis.

• Chao

Chao said that he will be needing to leave the field and seek a job in industry starting in January, but said he would finish updating the Snake model before he goes so that the packing fraction analysis can be completed with the new method.

10/04/2018

Present: J.P., Karl, Chao, David Feature Presentations :

• David

Showed several slides on the current status of the 2.5T packing fraction. With several issues fixed, the carbon peak shows good agreement with the helium peak subtracted by using a helium simulated elastic peak and subtracting it scaled by the appropriate packing fraction. For the production data, this process was repeated with an iterative process for the packing fraction of helium, showing no sensitivity to initial guess and converging on relatively reasonable packing fraction results. J.P. and Karl suggested that the fit between the simulation and the data is not perfect, it may be a reasonable enough comparison to function. However, for Material 7, the elastic yield is much sharper than for Material 8, and while the latter matches the shape of the simulation well, the former looks very different. Karl suggested to look into how the materials compare to the simulation for other settings, and J.P. noted that it should be impossible to compare the integrated yield to the simulation if their shape is different. It was also suggested to check on the status of the septa, and see if the simulation has accounted for any possible changes in it.

09/27/2018

Present: J.P., Karl, David Feature Presentations :

• David

Showed several slides on the current status of the 2.5T packing fraction. Showed first a carbon slide showing better agreement, but still a few very jagged areas in the simulated carbon peak, and mentioned that he has defaulted to comparing dilution data with helium in it, as the optics data proved very hard to work with. J.P. mentioned that in addition to the jagged behavior at the top of the peak, it is worth looking into why the simulation peak seems wider than the production data very slightly at the base. Using the scale factor provided by this carbon comparison, David showed several slides of the resulting packing fractions, doing a linear fit to an 0.4 and 0.6 packing fraction simulated yield. J.P. and Karl gave several suggestions for dealing with the Helium elastic peak, since that has not been done yet. J.P. also suggested it was a good idea to take the whole Nitrogen peak when integrating to find the packing fraction, rather than just part of it. David mentioned he would also talk to Chao about the odd behavior at the top of the elastic peaks and ask for suggestions. The packing fractions at this stage seem to give reasonable values, though everyone commented it will be important to subtract the Helium elastic peak before finalizing the packing fractions, and apply this same method to one of the 5T energy settings to compare to Toby's Ratio method.

Verbal Updates:

None

09/13/2018

Present: Chao, J.P., David Feature Presentations :

None

Verbal Updates:

• Chao

Working on smoothing out the acceptance correction for the 5T Transverse 2.2 GeV energy setting.

• David

Showed a few slides, indicating that the proper cuts give very good agreement for the carbon data in the elastic region. However, it was discussed that there are many jagged peaks above this region that Chao says should not exist. Chao gave a few suggestions for improving the simulation's agreement. David also asked about how to scale properly by the luminosity, and how to actually put the packing fraction in the simulation, as the setting in the simulation only changes the energy loss according to Chao. J.P. and Chao explained that David should just scale the 0.6 packing fraction simulation by 0.6, and so on, but that each element would need to be scaled separately and added together (so for 0.6 packing fraction, total yield = 0.6 Nitrogen + 0.4 Helium + 0.6 Proton, etc). J.P. also suggested to try simulating an empty cell as the helium peak should be clean and match well.

08/09/2018

Present: Chao, Karl, David Feature Presentations :

None

Verbal Updates:

• Chao

Working on finishing transverse data, doing another replay, save root files on his local computer so it will not be diluted anymore, will calculate transverse acceptance soon. Won’t be at meeting next week, in two weeks will show final 5T 2.2 GeV transverse acceptance.

• David

Working on comparison between carbon g2psim and data for 2.2GeV 2.5T, asked Chao a few technical questions about weighting the g2psim histograms in C++ or Python.

08/02/2018

Present: Chao, J.P., Karl, David Feature Presentations :

• Chao

Chao showed a few slides of final longitudinal acceptance correction, which he said look good except for a discontinuity at the start of the quasi elastic peak for longitudinal. Karl suggested checking the same plots with no dp cut just to compare. Chao also suggested that we make a repository of all g2p codes and simulations so that we can easily access whatever we need.

Verbal Updates:

• David

David mentioned that he’s working on learning to use g2psim with Chao’s help, so that he can tweak it and produce simulated yields for use in the Oscar PF method.

07/26/2018

Present: Chao, Karl, David Feature Presentations :

None

Verbal Updates:

• David: thanked Chao for sending g2psim, asked a few technical questions about operating it. Chao noted that it’s important to run each material seperately, so for production data, to run nitrogen, hydrogen, and helium independently and convolute them. David also showed the functional form of the uncertainty in g2 as a function of the uncertainty in the packing fraction, Karl suggested to provide rough numerical values and David agreed to do so next week.

• Chao: Sent David the current working version of g2p sim, very nearly done with 5T longitudinal acceptance. Will show cross sections for 5T longitudinal next week.

07/19/2018

Present: Chao, J.P., Karl, David Feature Presentations :

• Karl

Karl started off with some overview slides to try and get a majority of the work done by the end of the summer before people get busy. He voiced that the biggest question is whether we are using a data or model cross section, where the data is the attractive option if possible to make our results model independent, but the model may be a better option if the data is impossible or will take too long, as we can more or less publish the 5T data now, and the 2.5T data (pending pf analysis) He also asked if by the end of the meeting, we could identify all outstanding tasks and give an estimate for how long they will take to complete. Barring december, said that we should plan to have a paper submitted to PRL by the end of the year.

Moments paper work to be done yet: Low x contribution to BC integral Low nu contribution to gamma0

• David

David showed a talk describing the Oscar Rondon packing fraction method. J.P. voiced that since the method requires scaling the simulation to carbon data, it cannot be used in the elastic region since you would need a different scale factor for carbon or nitrogen, so the only region to apply the method is the very inelastic one. Chao said right now he doesn’t think the simulation can do inelastic data, but that once he applies Ryan’s tweaked Bosted model, he thinks it will be able to. There was some discussion about the error bar for this packing fraction method, and J.P. said that the standard deviation of both the carbon and the production data in the chosen region would need to be applied to get the total error.

There was brief discussion of going back to the unfinished elastic fit method if all else fails, since all that should need to be done is finding a way to deal with quasi elastic contamination.

David also showed plots for the scattering angle for 2.5T 2.2GeV that show that even once the materials are separated out, all the data seems choppy at high E’ values.

Verbal Updates:

• Ryan

Finally, David relayed a few questions from Ryan. Karl said he doesn’t care which paper is published first and we should just publish them in the order we are able to. He also voiced that Ryan’s hyperfine question was something we could discuss offline or at the next meeting as time ran short. With regard to the question of using our cross sections, the eventual conclusion was that if Chao is able to match the timetable he provided today that it may be feasible to use g2p cross sections for all 2.2GeV energy settings.

• Chao

Chao says within 2 weeks he can get cross section for longitudinal. Estimates within 1 month will have acceptance for 2.2 GeV, 5T Trans+Long, and another 6 weeks for 2.2GeV, 2.5T Trans. He said that 3.4 GeV has no elastic so he’s not sure there will be an acceptance. Karl and JP suggested he then prioritize the three 2.2GeV settings.

David estimated 6-7 weeks to get the packing fraction assuming we can get simulated yields. Chao agreed to send g2p simulation package to David so he can help with adding in missing models (Ryan Bosted-tweak?) and start learning to use it for applying the Oscar Method.

07/12/2018

Present: Chao, J.P., Karl, Ellie, David Feature Presentations :

• Karl

Showed the plots that he showed at Trento, and mentioned that there is a lot of interest right now specifically in the hyperfine result, as Ryan's calculation of delta 2 disagrees noticeably with the most recent papers. Said that we should try and get the paper out by the end of the year, so we should try and finish both acceptance and pf by the end of summer. Suggested that next week we sit down to figure out a game plan for how to do that.

Verbal Updates:

• David

Mentioned that he and Karl got in touch with Oscar Rondon to ask a few questions about his packing fraction method, which we hope to try. Also said that he is currently re-playing the packing fraction rootfiles for several gradations of cut in case we want to study the cut dependence of the ratio method. Also working on producing plots for the scattering angle fit for just the carbon data, and for each production material independently. Karl asked Chao about how good the simulation is for the transverse settings, Chao said he has been focusing on the simulation for the 5T 2.2GeV settings but could maybe look into it.

• Chao

Chao said he is continuing to work on the acceptance, and has been looking into the super-elastic peak J.P. asked about last week. 

05/31/2018

Present: Chao, J.P., Karl, Ellie, David Feature Presentations :

• Chao

Fit correction to the yield for 7 momentum settings in quasielastic region. Checked if the correction is stable and showed plot of yield for a 2.2GeV 5T run with the correction applied. J.P. says effective correction should be fine to fix relative difference. Discussed discontinuity at nu = ~459 MeV, Chao said he can fit that region to try and remove it. Karl asked about the motivation for the correction, Chao explained it is a fit that he found that works. See agendas section for plots.

Verbal Updates:

• David

Still trying to work on packing fraction analysis. Modified code from Toby to re-add 5T settings, can nearly reproduce Toby's results but scaled down by a factor of 3.5 for all 5T energy settings. Sent an email to Toby and trying to look into what variable change could cause this difference between 2.5T and 5T.

05/24/2018

Present: Chao, J.P., Karl, David Feature Presentations :

None

Verbal Updates:

• Chao

Still working on data corrections for the acceptance discontinuity, will have results next week. Also looked into beam position and found how to retrieve data from EPICS to help David, though warned that this does not give the real beam position, but the beam jumps should still show up in the raw data.

• David

Working on packing fractions and the to-do list of suggestions Ryan left last week, is able to reproduce Toby's ratios, working on doing a fit to the scattering angle to determine how the simulation might change with the tighter cut. J.P. suggested that taking the average scattering angle required correcting the data to an average as well. David also mentioned that he fixed the issue with getting null results from Toby's code for 5T, but still cannot reproduce the 5T packing fractions correctly.

05/17/2018

Present: Chao, J.P., Karl, David Feature Presentations :

None

Verbal Updates:

• David

Showed a few plots of the spread and average for each momentum setting involved in the asymmetry discrepancy analysis for the 2.5T data. However, J.P. noted that some of the means didn't quite make sense given the error bars of the points involved, and it became clear that there were a few mistakes in the normalization of the parameters for these plots. Further, differences between the global run by run asymmetry plot and the momentum-setting ones lead to the conclusion that there must have been a mistake in the presentation of the plots. David said he would re-do this section of the analysis more carefully and try again next week to determine if any of the momentum settings seem pathological.

04/26/2018

Present: J.P., Karl, David Feature Presentations :

None

Verbal Updates:

• David

Showed a reprisal of his update on the Left and Right HRS Asymmetry comparison for the 2.2 GeV 2.5 T data to catch J.P. up, and mentioned that he will produce a plot of total asymmetry plotted against run number by using a run by run asymmetry, at Ryan's suggestion. J.P. and Karl both agreed that it would not be wholly unacceptable to add a systematic to the moment data if the issue could not be resolved otherwise, but that it would be ideal to solve it and not have to do that. J.P. also suggested that since the asymmetry seems to be unstable for both arms around the relevant point, that perhaps something happened with the beam, and suggested cross comparing to Jie's BPM analysis to try and determine if there was a beam jump or something similar around the time that the inconsistency occurs. Also showed a table of packing fractions generated from Toby's scripts with different acceptance cuts. Said that the inclusion/exclusion of the RunStatus 6 Packing Fraction runs seems to have little impact on the Packing Fractions generated, but that using Ryan's tight cut in place of any of Toby's loose cuts produces packing fractions for the 2.2 GeV 2.5 T setting that seemed to Karl to be more reasonable. J.P. and Karl both suggested that one standard cut should be used for everything, preferably Ryan's tight cut since that has been well documented and discussed already. David said he will produce a re-done version of Table 6.4 from Toby's thesis, with all of the packing fractions generated using Ryan's tight cut.

04/05/2018

Present: Chao, David Feature Presentations :

None

Verbal Updates:

• Chao

Still working on trying to resolve acceptance issue, before J.P. left for China he advised that Chao try cuts on various variables that go into the acceptance, like the Raster and the BPMs, to try to quantify what the effect on the acceptance is. Chao said he is currently working on doing this.

• David

Said that he compared error bar on Gamma 2 to the variation in Gamma 2 caused by the discrepancy in the asymmetry between the left and right arms for the 2.5T 2254 MeV data, and that the total errorbar (statistical+systematic) is about 33% of the value of the moment, while the discrepancy causes a 20% change, for comparison. Also discovered that Toby's rootfile code appears to produce root files formatted differently from the ones his packing fraction script calls so working on eliminating the differences so that they can actually run together.

03/29/2018

Present: Karl, David Feature Presentations :

• David

Presented an update on the 2.5T 2254 MeV data asymmetry comparison, showing the result of replaying the data with a tighter momentum cut. Unfortunately, the tighter momentum cut seems to worsen the chi^2 comparison rather than improve it. Also showed and discussed with Karl an attempt to determine how serious the effects of the asymmetry discrepancy are on the final value for Gamma 2. The discrepancy seems to be responsible for a 20% variation in Gamma 2, but Karl said this value should be compared to the size of the existing error bar to determine if just throwing a systematic on and using the original data would be a valid way to go. Also re-showed the comparison of data taken on the first sweep up the momentum spectrum to data taken going back down, and showed that the largest discrepancy only occurs on the second set of runs, though no glaring change is notable in the log book.

David also mentioned that he's started work on trying to replay Toby's root files to re-generate the packing fractions for the 2.5T data.

Verbal Updates:

None

03/23/2018

Present: Chao, David Feature Presentations :

• Chao

Trying to resolve the issue Ryan discovered with acceptance not being continuous for production runs, using Dummy run to try and look at background and subtract out the effects of the target cell itself, runs are scaled by live charge so are proportional to cross section, so can be subtracted. This subtraction removes everything outside the target cell, effectively, the background, but does not consider the difference between foil target and extended target. Cut simulated target into 1mm slices to investigate-- for real target, there is no cross section difference between z=0, z=-13, and z=13, for any kinematic variable. Chao's conclusion is that either simulation doesn't match well, *or* the acceptance should not be dependent on the z position in the target. See slides attached to agendas section.

Verbal Updates:

• David

Left arm replay finished and asymmetries regenerated for 2.5T 2.2GeV runs, ran into issue with many of the right arm runs failing repeatedly on the batch farm. Going to try running interactively with Screen and using a different queue to avoid timeouts.

03/09/2018

Present: Ryan, J.P., Karl, David Feature Presentations :

None.

Verbal Updates:

• Ryan

Still waiting on Chao to get back to him about cross section issue, said Chao's explanation makes sense to him. J.P. asked about question dealing with the Y acceptance, but Ryan commented that he hasn't talked to Chao about it yet. Ryan agrees that the target length is the only thing different between carbon and production runs and that this is likely the source of the cross section issue.

• David

Replay finally working, ran into issue with some of the files coming out un-filled from the batch farm, but this is an issue Ryan has seen before and Ryan advised that he replay just the failed runs repeatedly until all of them function.

11/27/2017

Present: Ryan, Ellie, J.P., Karl, David Feature Presentations :

None.

Verbal Updates:

• Ryan

Discussed progress on the PRL with Karl and J.P., and whether or not the acceptance should be included.

11/17/2017

Present: Ryan, Ellie, J.P., Karl, David Feature Presentations :

None.

Verbal Updates:

• Ryan

Corresponding about Hyperfine results with Franziska Hagelstein, got numbers for delta_1 and delta_2, Karl suggested that this is good but evidence that since Ryan's data is on the Arxiv, people are going to want to use it and this is more incentive for us to be expedient in getting to publish. Ryan is working on finishing the hyperfine paper and intends to include both 2.2 GeV 2.5 T data, and the g1 point.

• Karl

Has approved Toby's thesis, after edits that provide more detail on the choice of the ratio method over the fit method for the packing fractions.

• David

Still working on tight dp cut replay, has all of Toby's dilution and packing fraction scripts running locally, Ryan and Karl suggested trying to replay dilutions with a tighter acceptance.

• Chao

Trying to get acceptance study running on JLab batch farm. Longitudinal study for the acceptance is done.

10/27/2017

Present: Ryan, Ellie, J.P., David Feature Presentations :

• Chao

Acceptance study for the longitudinal settings is just about finished. Elastic peak agrees well with theory, continuity of nu spectrum is good. Needs a conversion between slow and fast raster current. Transverse spectrum has not as good continuity, will be fixed soon.

Verbal Updates:

• David

Still working on tight dp cut replay, showed proof of principle doing dp cut on bin by bin basis, that seems to give more evidence that this is the issue, but aims to make it better with the count by count replay.

• Karl

Showed plots of g2p packing fractions vs SANE packing fractions, discussed the elastic fit method with Toby to determine that the .3 packing fraction is not good, but wants to investigate the suspiciously high 2.5T packing fractions, since SANE data never goes above .74.

10/06/2017

Present: Ryan, Ellie, J.P., David Feature Presentations :

None

Verbal Updates:

• Ryan

Working on the PRL for the ChiPT paper, just started.

• David

Working on resolving systematic shift in 467 Nu point for 2.2 GeV 2.5T asymmetry between left and right HRS, showed normalized yields, J.P. and Ryan suggested a tight dp cut. Also discussed the suspiciously good chi^2 generated with the method J.P. suggested before, J.P. said he thinks it is fine that the chi^2 is small but that it is necessary to evolve the kinematics of one arm to the other one before combining the 2.5T asymmetries. Also mentioned working on a cross check for the 5T data for g2 with Toby and Ryan, but has a sign error, it was suggested for David to fix the sign of the asymmetry to the theory or the elastic asymmetry peak.

09/22/2017

Present: Ryan, Chao, Ellie, Karl, David

Feature Presentations :

None

Verbal Updates:

• Ryan

Sent model codes to David, discussed dilution's odd behavior at nu > 1000 MeV, explained that previously he and Toby have switched to a model above 950 MeV abruptly from data. Said that packing fraction systematic error doubled after Toby fixed the radiative correction issue. Karl and Ryan discussed the issue of Toby assuming the ratio of carbon to nitrogen was a flat 15%, where Ryan was able to find a paper plotting it vs W.

• Chao

Unable to speak, but will present 5T 2.2 GeV acceptance next week.

• David

Has generated g2 for 2.5T 2.2GeV data, will refine over the coming week.

09/06/2017

Present: Karl, J.P., David, Ellie

Feature Presentations :

• David

Showed a study on the left and right arm HRS asymmetry comparison for 2.5T. Was able to replicate Ryan's results for 5T asymmetries, J.P. and Karl suggested redefining the chi^2 in terms of the uncertainty of both arms to remove ambiguity. 2.5T 2.2 GeV asymmetries show good agreement with the exception of three data points, which David is investigating, after noting that the runs going into those data points jump by about 5 days and change target material. Karl and J.P. suggested it was also important to obtain information about whether Toby's dilutions should change based on the target material. More details on his slides can be found here.

Verbal Updates:

None

08/23/2017

Present: Ryan, J.P., Toby, David, Alexandre

Feature Presentation :

None

Verbal Updates:

• Ryan

Discovered the the divergence in XS from Toby was because the radiation lengths were flipped in Toby's analysis-- TA comes after TB (T after and T before). Toby promised to re-run the code and ensure

• David

Working on Left+Right HRS 2.5T comparison still, trying to get Chi^2 for 5T comparison to be as good as in Ryan's analysis. Using same runs, LHRS asymmetry agrees with Ryan's but RHRS differs for three data points.

08/09/2017

Present: Ryan, Chao, J.P., Karl, David

Feature Presentation :

None

Verbal Updates:

• Chao

Working on optics runs to complete acceptance study, trying to figure out a way to work around not having definitive BPM Results.

• Ryan

Trying to get signatures from committee on thesis, still waiting to hear back from Toby about dilution issues.

• David

Working on Left+Right HRS 2.5T comparison, have preliminary results but with a very large Chi^2 of ~25, trying to work on account for second order effects to knock that down and make sure it is viable to combine the data from both arms.

08/02/2017

Present: Ryan, Karl, David, J.P.

Feature Presentation :

None

Verbal Updates:

• David

Still working on HRS asymmetry comparison for the LHRS and RHRS, installing ROOT and configuring local coding environment. Ryan agreed to help guide David through setting up his environment.

Discussed intelligent magnet power supply, which David will investigate communicating with via USB, irrelevant to the g2p collaboration.

• Ryan

Thesis edits essentially complete, L+R HRS Comparison had an angle difference of .3 degrees Ryan and Karl discussed trying to get a better dilution and packing fraction from Toby to deal with other issues in 2.5 T 2.2 GeV data Ryan should be able to get shell of Hyperfine results soon

• Karl

Karl asked Xiaochao to contact Jie about finishing the BPM analysis, Jie responded that he will not finish the analysis. In terms of administrative issues, Karl agreed to add David to g2p mailing list so that he can take over sending out weekly meeting emails from Ryan.

07/19/2017

Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, David

Feature Presentations :

• Toby

Showed an update on the dilution and packing fraction calculation for 2.5T. This is an issue at large nu where the fit to the packing fraction and dilution grow large where the model expects them to level off. Toby thinks this might be an issue with the radiative scale factor he is applying to the data. There is also some questions about the choice of acceptance cut used to generate the quantities. He chose a large acceptance cut to improve statistics but this might have systematic effects causing the rise. He will repeat the analysis at a few difference acceptance cuts to check this effect. More details on his slides can be found here.

Verbal Updates:

• David

Working on HRS asymmetry comparison for the LHRS and RHRS

07/12/2017

Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Ellie, David, Chao

Feature Presentations :

• Ryan

Showed beam energy values for the experiment run period on production runs. There are some bigger than expected fluctuations. To first order the effect of this is small (Mott XS variation) but the question is how this could effect calibrations, such as the BPM calibration. More details on his slides can be found here.

Verbal Updates:

• Toby

2.5 T packing fraction values. Taking into account yield drifts gives a systematic error on the order of 15% at 2.2 GeV 2.5 T. Looking into 1.7 GeV settings next

• David

Working on HRS asymmetry comparison for the LHRS and RHRS

• Chao

Working on acceptance simulation. Running simulation for the production runs. Slow going because he can only runs a handful of jobs at a time.

07/05/2017

Present: Ryan, Karl, Toby, J.P., Chao, David

General Discussion:

• Batch farm is prioritizing multi-threaded jobs so this will impact g2p replay and also Chao's acceptance simulation timeline.

• Toby is going to start looking at the 2.5T dilutions this week.

• David has generated asymmetries but results are consistent with zero so he will try larger binning (up from 10 MeV)

06/28/2017

Present: Ryan, Toby, David, Karl, Chao, JP, Alexandre, Xiaochao, Ellie

General Discussion:

• 2.5T data quality. Based upon error bars from a quick moment analysis of the 2.5T data from Ryan it appears that the 2.2/1.7 GeV data is useful for publication with Q2 values of approx 0.04 GeV2 and 0.02 GeV2, respectively. The 1.1 GeV data error bars are very large, which is in part due to the very small asymmetry prediction at that low Q2 (0.009 GeV2).

• Toby is leaving to start a job on July 24. He will try and get something together for the dilution and packing fraction analysis for the 2.5T settings.

• Chao is making good progress with the longitudinal acceptance for the carbon data. He is able to produce a continuous spectrum with good agreement in the overlap regions at large nu. Unfortunately there is no overlap around the delta-resonance. He will do a similar study except at the transverse settings next.

• David is going to work on the data quality check for the 2.5T asymmetries. His first step is to produce g2p asymmetries and compare to results from Ryan and Toby.

06/21/2017

No meeting because of Hall A collaboration meeting.

06/14/2017

Present: Ryan, Karl, Toby, J.P.,Chao

Feature Presentation :

• Ryan

Showed the results of a quick analysis of the 1.7 and 1.1 GeV 2.5 T settings. The 1.7 GeV data looks pretty good and can most likely be used going forward. There is one momentum setting just previous to the delta where the majority of the data was taken with a mismatched septa and dipole configuration, so it is not included in these slides. He will try including this data to see the effect it has on the results. It should probably be OK for the asymmetry. The 1.1 GeV data looks worse statistically, which related to the much smaller asymmetry that we see as we go to lower and lower Q2. As we go to lower Q2 we also have the added complication of the Christy fit we're using for the unpol XS getting worse and worse. Going forward Ryan will do a quick moment analysis of this data. More details on his slides can be found here.

• Toby

Showed different methods for calculating the low-x portion of the BC sum rule. These include the polarized PDF's and Hall B model. The problem is that none of these methods are really applicable at the g2p kinematics (PDF's hold down to Q2 = 1 GeV2), and that the low-x portion of the integral must be a sizable contribution for the BC sum rule to hold. Going forward we will most likely assume that the BC sum rule holds and use that assumption to place a limit on the low-x behavior of g2 at low Q2. More details on his slides can be found here.

06/07/2017

Present: Ryan, Karl, Toby, J.P.,Chao, Ellie

Feature Presentation :

• Ryan

Showed the results of a quick analysis of the 2.2 GeV 2.5 T settings. The goal of this analysis was to check the overall quality of the data and includes the combined statistics of both the RHRS and LHRS. The overall statistical precision of the data is pretty good considering the much lower target polarization of the 2.5T settings (15% on average compared to the 70% for the 5T runs). Going forward he will do a similar study for the 1.1 GeV and 1.7 GeV settings and also complete a very preliminary moment analysis of these settings. These settings also need a completed dilution and packing fraction analysis slides.

Verbal Updates:

• Jie

Published his BPM tech-note update to the wiki.

• Chao

Summarized his acceptance study progress. So far he has applied his 8mm raster cut method (+/- 15mrad in ph and 20 mrad in th) to the elastic carbon long. setting and gets 5% agreement between the simulation and data. He is able to drastically reduce the uncertainty in the raster cut by cutting on current and not size. The timing information of the raster is known very well. He knowns the time the raster spends inside the area of the cut and the time it spends outside. The ratio between these two times is scaled to the total charge. He is currently applying this to all the carbon dilution data at longitudinal to see how this procedure works at other P0. He estimates this will take 2-3 weeks. After that he will move onto the transverse setting and estimates that will take an additional 1-2 months to complete.

05/31/2017

Present: Ryan, Karl, Toby, J.P.,Chao

Feature Presentation :

• Toby

Showed an update on his g2 moment calculations. His moments included the BC sum rule and also DeltaLT. From his analysis it was concluded that it is very difficult to verify the BC sum rule at low Q2 because of the lack of data at low x. The DeltaLT results look much better. More details on his slides are found here.

Verbal Updates:

• Jie

Still working on his BPM tech-note/update.

• Chao

Planning on talking with JP about his acceptance study update. Had to leave early to go to another meeting.

05/24/2017

Present: Ryan, David, Karl, Toby, J.P., Jie, Ellie

Feature Presentation :

None

Verbal Updates:

• Jie

Still working on his BPM tech-note/update. Hopes to have it done by next week. This might also be his last g2p meeting before he starts his new job. Will also add his thesis to the wiki.

05/17/2017

Present: Ryan, David, Karl, Toby, J.P. Chao

Feature Presentation :

• Ryan

Showed an analysis for an explanation for why the 2.2 GeV Longitudinal polarized DS does not go to zero below the pion production threshold after tail subtraction. His idea is that the elastic radiative events come from a different part of the acceptance than the inelastic events. This effect could be potentially large if a large acceptance cut is used. The big unknown in this analysis is what is the exact angle difference. With the current reconstruction/simulation status it's very difficult to determine. In the future, if the simulation is able to reproduce the angular acceptance then the tails can be calculated and weighted for the simulated acceptance. This also raises potential problems for getting a polarized DS from an asymmetry and cross section calculated with different acceptance cuts. For now, the analysis will proceed with the old method and assume one scattering angle. Ryan will check the results of using a tight asymmetry and tight cross section cut to see how the tail subtraction is effected. More details on his slides are found here.

• Chao

Showed an update on the optics simulation and he is currently trying to beat down the systematic error from making a raster cut. He is currently cutting on raster current as opposed to raster size to improve the uncertainty. With a raster cut the simulation is much better able to reproduce the data.

05/10/2017

Present: Ryan, Jie, David, Toby, Ellie, JP

Feature Presentation :

• Ryan

Showed an analysis update of the results section of his thesis and includes analysis of all of the 5T settings. He evaluated the g1 moments and the hyperfine splitting contributions for g1 and g2. More details on his slides are found here.

05/03/2017

Present: Ryan, Jie, David, Karl, Toby, Ellie, JP, Chao

Feature Presentation :

• David

Showed an update for calculating the acceptance correction by normalizing to the elastic cross section. His uncertainty in this method is slightly better than the results Toby showed before and his dominant uncertainty is the scattering angle reconstruction and it's effect on the Mott XS and elastic form factors. He will look into further separating the quasi-elastic and elastic peaks by subtracting out the elastic tail for helium-4. More details on his slides are found here.

4/26/2017

Present: Ryan, Jie, David, Karl, Toby, Ellie

Feature Presentation :

• Ryan

Showed results of a parallel asymmetry analysis between Toby and Ryan. The asymmetries agree very well and the only slight difference is at the longitudinal setting. This difference is a result of slightly different acceptance cuts used in the analysis and goes away if the same cuts are used. More details on his slides are found here.

• Toby

Posted an update on last weeks slides to include a model comparison to his calculated cross sections. His slides are found here.

4/19/2017

Present: Ryan, Jie, David, Karl, Toby, Ellie, Chao

Feature Presentations :

• Toby

Showed a comparison between calculating polarized cross sections using a model and using data. In the data method he multiplies the raw asymmetry by the raw cross section with no dilution correction. In the model method he applies the dilution to the asymmetry and then uses a unpolarized proton model (radiated). The two results agree pretty well except for the 3.3 GeV setting where the yield drifts present problems with the dilution and cross section calculation. We will most likely have to use a model at this setting. More details on his slides are found here.

Verbal Updates:

• Chao

Talked about using the raster cut in the simulation to match data and simulation for the acceptance. He's going to soon try and apply this raster cut method across the momentum settings at the longitudinal setting and see how well the simulation can match data. He's currently using a 30 mRad phi cut, which is significantly larger than the cut Toby is using and will the systematic uncertainty from knowing the cut boundary. There is going to be an additional systematic from using a raster cut when it comes to calculating the accumulated charge. He is looking into this.

4/12/2017

Present: Ryan, Jie, David, Karl, Toby, JP, Ellie

No presentations this week. Toby and Ryan are working on comparing their asymmetry results to confirm that their methods agree. Jie's graduation date is May 9 and he is still working on finishing up his thesis.

3/29/2017

Present: Ryan, Jie, David, Karl, Toby, JP, Chao, Ellie

Feature Presentations :

• Ryan

Showed an update including the Gamma1 and GDH moment calculations. The results have very good statistical error bars when compared with the Hall B data and also his integration of the Hall B data agrees with the published Hall B results. More details can be found in his slides here.

• Chao

Showed an update on the simulation for Run 5612. He is able to reproduce the edges of the acceptance better if he places a very tight cut on the raster size. This suggests a beam position reconstruction issue. Going forward he is going to look at the uncertainty introduced by this raster cut and see which has the larger contribution to the uncertainty: raster cut or acceptance cut. More details can be found in his slides here.

3/22/2017

Present: Ryan, Jie, David, Karl, Toby, JP, Chao

Feature Presentations :

• Ryan

Showed a comparison between the Bosted model and low Q2 SLAC data. The agreement between data and the model is better at larger Q2 and around 15% at the 5T setting kinematics. Ryan is waiting on an updated model from Eric Christy that includes the low Q2 data in the fit. More details can be found in his slides here.

• Toby

Also showed a comparison between the Bosted model and the SLAC data but included a preliminary g2p cross section as well. The agreement is at the 15% level with our data. More details can be found in his slides here.

• David

Showed a method for calculating the helium-4 elastic cross section from g2p empty dilution runs. He compares the g2p data to the Rosenbluth result from the MSW (McCarthy-Sick-Whitney) form factors and get's agreement at the 10% level. He will look into adding systematic uncertainty estimates to both his measured and calculated quantities. He will also investigate the 'Delta E' term in the elastic peak radiative corrections. More details on his slides can be found here.

Verbal Updates:

A request was made by Eva-Maria Kabuss for some g2p slides to present at DIS 2017 (April 3-7).

3/15/2017

Present: Ryan, Jie, David, Karl, Toby, JP, Chao, Ellie

Feature Presentations :

• Chao

Showed an update on the optics and acceptance simulation. He showed that for a carbon run with no liquid helium and at the longitudinal target configuration he is able to match data to simulation with a very tight acceptance cut. He is working on expanding this cut to reduce the overall systematic uncertainty in the acceptance. Super elastic events and carbon excited states make expanding this range difficult. More details on his slides can be found here.

Verbal Updates:

• Jie

Graduation date is set for May 9, 2017.

3/8/2017

Present: Ryan, Jie, David, Karl, Toby, JP

Feature Presentations :

• Ryan

Showed an update on how he is extracting g1 from the longitudinal data and evolving it to a constant Q2. He also showed a preliminary calculation of the gamma0 moment, which agrees well with the current Hall B measurements and chiral perturbation theory predictions. More details on his slides can be found here.

3/1/2017

Present: Ryan, Toby, David, Jie, JP, Karl, Ellie, Chao

Feature Presentations :

• Ryan

Showed an update on the systematic error analysis going into the asymmetries, polarized cross sections and radiative corrections. Currently the dominating systematic error is from the angle reconstruction and use of an unpolarized model to create the polarized cross sections. The angle reconstruction error is amplified at low angles because of the strong Mott dependence. The unpolarized cross section systematic could be reduced in the future by substituting in g2p data for that component. More details on his slides can be found here.

• Jie

Gave an update on the BPM calibration process. Showed that there is a strong position dependence to the off-sets determined from Harp scans. Through the reconstruction procedure he is unable to reproduce the location of the harp scan points because of this position dependence. More details on his slides can be found here.

• Toby

Presented the status of the dilution analysis for the 3.3GeV settings. The analysis is complicated by the large yield drifts seen in the data. He is still trying to figure out a method to give reasonable dilution results at this setting. But whatever method he settles on will most likely come with an increased level of systematic error. More details on his slides can be found here.

2/22/2017

Present: Ryan, Toby, David, Jie, JP

Feature Presentations :

No feature presentations this week. Everyone is planning on presenting next week.

2/15/2017

Present: Ryan, Toby, David, Jie, JP

Feature Presentations :

• Jie:

Showed an update the BPM calibration. There was some discussion on the base assumptions Jie is making in removing potential position dependence on some calibrations constants (b-/b+). More details on his slides can be found here.

General Discussion :

• Toby:

Updated target polarizations are available now.

• Ryan:

HERMES publication from 2013 of new BC Sum Rule calculation at Q2 = 5 GeV2. Data is consistent with 0 but with large error bars.

2/8/2017

Present: Ryan, Toby, David Karl, Jie, JP, Chao, Ellie

Feature Presentations :

• Ryan:

Showed the final systematics for the inelastic and elastic RC's. The end result is 2-3% for the elastic tail and 3-5% for the inelastic RCs. More details on his slides can be found here.

General Discussion :

• Toby:

Updating his systematic uncertainty on the target polarization analysis.

2/1/2017

Present: Ryan, Toby, David Karl, Jie, JP, Chao, Ellie

Feature Presentations :

• Jie:

Gave an update on the BPM analysis. Still have trouble solving the position jumps. More details on his slides can be found here.

• Ryan:

Showed the outline of the g2p radiative corrections procedure, including the polarized elastic tail and RADCOR and POLRAD formulations of the inelastic RCs. Also presented systematics for the unfolding procedure. He will next finalize the theory systematics for the RCs. More details on his slides can be found here.

• Chao:

Gave an update on the acceptance study. He showed that at the longitudinal setting the shift from 0 in the theta_tg histogram is caused by the target field. The effect is more pronounced at transverse settings. More details on his slides can be found here.

General Discussion :

• Toby:

g2p dilutions are now available on the wiki.

1/18/2017

Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Jie, JP, Chao, Ellie

Feature Presentations :

• Jie:

Hoping for a May graduation with his thesis split between three topics (g2p is one). Point was made that Jie must finish his BPM study before graduation because at this point he is the only one that can do it. More details on his slides can be found here.

• Toby:

Hoping for a May graduation with a close-to-final g2 his goal for his thesis. Finishing up the dilution analysis for 3.3 GeV 5T. More details on his slides can be found here.

• Ryan:

Hoping for a June-August graduation with a close-to-final g2/hyperfine point his goal for his thesis. Finishing up the g2p radiative corrections procedure setup. More details on his slides can be found here.

• Chao:

Gave an update on the acceptance study. He is still having a hard time matching the simulation to data. More details on his slides can be found here.

General Discussion :

• Karl:

is looking into the EG1b data for our highest Q2 settings as the parallel component for g2.

1/11/2017

Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Jie, David, Chao

Feature Presentations :

• Ryan:

Showed the effect a 0.3 degree scattering angle difference between HRSs would have on the data. Calculated this difference using models and then compared the data to it. The data is consistent with a straight line fit at 0, so the statistics of g2p are not sufficient to make a definitive statement. Also showed a calculation for the uncertainty in the out-of-plane polarization angle using a psuedo Monte-Carlo method. The uncertainty is around 1%. Details of his slides can be found here.

1/04/2017

Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl JP, Jie,

Feature Presentations :

• Ryan:

Showed an update on the comparison between the LHRS and RHRS asymmetries for 2.2GeV 5T transverse. Using course 70 MeV bins and cutting out runs with large livetime and charge asymmetry he was able to get good agreement between the two spectrometers. The agreement is independent of the out-of-plane polarization angle correction. There is some question about the effect of the minor difference in the scattering angle between HRS's and the asymmetry. He will present on this difference at the next meeting. More details on his slides can be found here.

• Jie:

Still looking into the BPM calibrations and the source of the BPM position jumps that don't see a corresponding yield change. He hopes to have this analysis wrapped up by the end of January. More details on his slides can be found here.

• Other news:

At the 1/18/2017 weekly meeting we're planning on having a discussion on the analysis path forward. The primary focus on this discussion will be the experimental cross sections.

12/21/2016

Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Vince, JP, Jie, Chao

Feature Presentations :

• Toby:

Showed an update on the packing fraction analysis with a new method that is similar to his dilution calculation. This method gives a lower uncertainty than his elastic fit method. His two methods agree within the uncertainties for almost all of the settings. He will check the few kinematic settings where this isn't true and also try to pin down the systematic error from using the Bosted model to scale C12 to N14. More details on his slides can be found here.

• Other news:

Vince's last day at g2p meetings. Good luck at your new job Vince!

12/14/2016

Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Vince, JP, Jie, Chao

Feature Presentations:

• Jie:

Showed a status update on the BPM calibration procedure. More details can be found in his slides here.

• Chao:

Still having trouble matching the width of the simulation peaks to peaks from data. Even getting rid of all apertures did not sufficiently widen the simulation peak. He is continuing to look into it. More details can be found here.

12/07/2016

Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Vince, JP, Jie, Alexandre

Verbal Updates:

• Toby

Working on getting his dilution code back up and running

• Ryan

Working on asymmetry comparisons between the LHRS/RHRS at 2.2 GeV 5T Transverse.

• Jie

Talking with Pengjia still about the BPM calculation procedure. Will give an in-depth update on the status of the BPM analysis at the next meeting.

11/30/2016

Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Ellie, JP, Jie, Kalyan, Alexandre, Vince, Jixie, Chao

Feature Presentations

• Ryan

Showed an update on the out-of-plane polarization angle calculation. The calculation agrees with Chao's result but still seems too large (40 - 65 degrees). Chao is working on confirming the results. Details of his slides can be found here.

• Toby

Showed an update on the packing fraction analysis. He presented final values for all settings except for 1.1 GeV 2.5 T. The difficulty at this setting is that the quasi-elastic peak is barely separable from the elastic peak so he is unsure of how to fit it. This is also a problem at the other 2.5 T settings and is manifest in the larger systematic uncertainties. Details of his slides can be found here.

Verbal Updates:

• Chao

working on out-of-plane polarization angle calculation and will also confirm the proton elastic simulation results for Toby.

• Jie

Talking with Pengjia still about the BPM calculation procedure.

11/23/2016

Present: Ryan, Karl, JP, Jie, Kalyan, Alexandre

• Jie

Discussed BPM calibration method

• Ryan

Working on calculating the out-of-plane polarization angle, with help from Chao. Hoping to confirm method with Chao and present something soon.

11/16/2016

Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl,Chao, Jie, Vince, Alexandre

Feature Presentations

• Jie

Showed an update on the BPM calibration procedure. His correlation method for calculating the pedestals improves the uncertainty but does not affect the position reconstruction. In the calibration procedure there is an offset term that as large variations between calibration points. Pengjia fit this constant for current dependence but it is also possible it might have some positional dependence. Jie is going to talk with Pengjia about this. More details on his slides can be found here.

Verbal Updates:

• Toby is working on finalizing the uncertainties for the packing fraction analysis and is running into some issues with g2psim.

• Ryan is working on calculating the out-of-plane polarization angle, with help from Chao.

11/02/2016

Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, JP, Vince, Alexandre

Feature Presentations

• Ryan

Showed a brief update on calculating the out-of-plane angle correction to the perpendicular polarized cross sections. He will talk to Chao about how to make this calculation using the reconstructed variables in the replayed ROOT files. More details on his slides can be found here.

• Toby

Showed a slide on the yield spectra for the elastic runs in PF analysis at all kinematic settings. The nitrogen and helium peaks are only clearly visible at the 2.2 GeV 5T transverse setting, so he will need to adjust his fitting routine to account for this at the other settings. More details on his slides can be found here.

10/26/2016

Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Jie, JP, Chao, Ellie, Vince, Jixie

Feature Presentations

• Ryan

Showed an update on the polarized radiative corrections using POLRAD at the g2p kinematics (non-constant scattering angle). He showed that using the same angle fit for all the input spectra (as opposed to individual fits representing measured data) the systematic error was similar to that of data taken at a constant scattering angle. For this study he used the MAID 2007 model. He recommends using models for the RC'ing of g2p data but those models could be tuned and checked using measured data. More details on his slides can be found here.

Verbal Updates:

• Chao

Working on the optics and acceptance simulation and tuning the simulation aperatures. Showed a short slide with better agreement between data and simulation. Still working on improving this.

• Jie

Working on the BPM position calibration procedure.

10/19/2016

Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Jie, JP, Chao, Ellie, Vince, Jixie

Feature Presentations

• Toby

Showed an update on his method for calculating the packing fraction, along with his estimate for the systematic uncertainty. He's hoping to finalize the results for the 5.0 T settings within the next few weeks. More details on his slides can be found here. There was some discussion that his uncertainty of ~8% in the fitting method is overestimated as described in the slides, so hopefully the systematic uncertainty is at the 10% level, maximum.

Verbal Updates:

• Chao

Working on the optics and acceptance simulation and tuning the simulation aperatures.

• Jie

Working on the BPM position calibration procedure. Still trying to fully understand Pengjia's method.

• Ryan

Working on setting up inelastic radiative corrections procedure for changing angle of g2p.

10/12/2016

Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Jie, JP, Chao

Feature Presentations

• Jie

Showed final results for the BPM pedestal uncertainty using his new correlation method for the 2.2 GeV 5T transverse setting. The uncertainties are about a factor of 3-4 better than previous and are approx. 1mm and 1mrad at the target. He is moving on to finishing this study at other settings and also looking into the BPM calibration procedure and beam position jumps. More details on his slides can be found here.

Verbal Updates:

• Chao

Working on the optics and acceptance simulation. Believes that the previous mismatch he showed with data and simulation at bigger angular acceptance was due to the simulation aperatures blocking more events than seen in the data. Current size estimates of the aperatures is from a combination of g2p survey and historical Hall A information.

• Toby

Working on packing fraction results and updating the systematic error analysis. Hoping to finalize shortly.

• Ryan

Working on setting up inelastic radiative corrections procedure for changing angle of g2p.

10/05/2016

Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Ellie, Jie, JP, Jixie

Feature Presentations

• Ryan

Showed the reconstructed angle for a loose cut on all of the LHRS g2p production data. The fit is a combination of a linear and exponential fit; this form is suggested from a Jixie ELOG post. For the most part there is good agreement with the data to the fit, and outliers from the fit is a potential criteria for selection of good runs. He used these fits to mimic g2p data and test RC procedures on data at different angles. He found that he could do RC's with small systematic error if he used the same fit for all input spectra. This is not the case for g2p data, so he's working on improving the method. More details on his slides can be found here.

Verbal Updates:

• Jie

Working on the BPM pedestal issue. He's now considering correlations between all channels in the BPM pedestals. This slightly increases his uncertainty but it is still smaller than Pengjia's result and helps alleviate the triple peak issue.

• Toby

Working on packing fraction results and updating the simulation calculations needed for the cross section ratio input.

• SPIN 2016

Chi-PT calculations of the polarizabilities are still bad. NEED DATA!

9/21/2016

Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Chao, Jie, JP, Jixie, Kalyan, Vince

Feature Presentations

• Jie

Showed an update on the BPM pedestal calculation. Found a correlation between the pedestals on BPM channels. By using a rotated coordinate system, he can decouple the correlation. This allows for a reduced uncertainty in the BPM pedestal uncertainty contribution to the BPM calculation. More details on his slides can be found here. Will work on finalizing the updating uncertainty calculations and continue with checking the BPM calibration.

• Ryan

Showed the reconstructed angles for three different asymmetry cuts for both the transverse longitudinal asymmetries. There is a difference between the hot-spot angle in the transverse asymmetry. The RHRS accepts smaller angles in the transverse configuration but this cannot account for the difference in the HRS asymmetries between L/R. More details on his slides can be found here. He will try different cuts on different variables to try and find a set that gives agreement between the LHRS/RHRS.

• • NO MEETING NEXT WEEK BECAUSE OF SPIN 2016

9/14/2016

Present: Ryan, Toby, Ellie, Karl, David, Chao, Jie, JP, Jixie, Kalyan, Vince

Feature Presentations

• David

Showed a statistical analysis between the LHRS and RHRS asymmetries for the 2.2GeV 5T transverse/longitudinal data. Concluded that for long. data the two spectrometers are statistically measuring the same thing. Further work still needs to be done on for the transverse asymmetries. His slides can be found here.

• Toby

Showed an updated packing fraction calculation where he replaces fits to the quasi-elastic and quasi-elastic contamination with the Bosted model. His packing fractions are in much better agreement with this method and the consensus is that the fit method was driving the large differences previously seen. He was given suggestions on trying to better quantify the quasi-elastic contamination, including using other models and separating the kinematic regions using acceptance cuts. More details can be found in his slides here.

• Jie

While on the schedule, he will present next week.

9/7/2016

Present: Ryan, Toby, Ellie, Karl, Chao, Jie, JP

Feature Presentations

• Chao

Gave an update on the acceptance study of the 5T longitudinal setting. He's currently working on tuning the resolution of the simulation package. He finds that he can match the width of the elastic peak for a small range in theta and phi target but as he increases that range his simulation produces too narrow of a spectra. He is working on fixing this issue. His slides can be found here.

• Ryan

Showed a comparison between the 5T longitudinal asymmetries using different acceptance cuts. He demonstrated that within our statistical error bars we do not need to make a bin-centering correction to the asymmetries for the longitudinal setting. He also tried to see if a model accurately described the asymmetry change with angle but was not successful. More details can be found in his slides here.

8/31/2016

Present: Ryan, Toby, Ellie, Karl, Jixie, Vince, Jie, Alexandre, JP

Feature Presentations

• Jie

Gave an update on the BPM pedestal analysis. He showed results from the pedestal analysis of beam trip runs for both the Happex DAQ and HRS DAQ. HRS DAQ has cleaner pedestals but the HRS DAQ is less precise. The pedestal shift seen in the HAPPEX DAQ is continuos with time. He will continue to look at the BPM calibration procedure and try and quantify the effect the pedestals have on the BPM uncertainty. More details can be found in his slides here.

Verbal Updates:

• Ryan

Continuing to look at HRS asymmetry angle dependence

8/24/2016

Present: Ryan, Toby, Ellie, Chao, Vince, Jie, Alexandre, JP

Feature Presentations

• Toby

Showed an update on the packing fraction analysis. He has been able to successfully fit the two elastic peaks (N2 and He4) and quasi-elastic peak to produce packing fraction results. He also presented an alternative calculation to the packing fraction, just using the helium peak from production and a dummy/empty run. His two methods agree at the ~10% level but differ greatly from what Melissa showed previously. Toby will continue to look at his fits and see if there is room for improvement there because there is some fit dependence on the result. One suggestion was to fit the simpler dummy run He4 elastic peak and use those fit parameters in the production runs. More details can be found in his slides here.

Verbal Updates:

• Ryan

Continuing to look at HRS asymmetry angle dependence

• Jie

Working on understanding Pengjia's BPM code.

8/17/2016

Present: Ryan, Toby, Ellie, Chao, Vince, Jie, Alexandre

Feature Presentations

• Ryan

Showed a comparison between asymmetries between LHRS and RHRS for the three 5T settings: 2.2 GeV long/trans and 3.3 trans. Overall there is good agreement between the HRS's, and the biggest disagreement is between the arms at the 2.2 GeV trans setting. Ryan will check that scattering angle dependence of the asymmetries next to see if this can improve the agreement. Currently the RHRS scattering angle reconstruction is not correct. Chao believes this is a coordinate system issue in his code. Slides can be found here.

Verbal Updates:

• Chao

Back at JLab for one year. First thing he will focus on is correcting the scattering angle reconstruction for the RHRS replay. After this he will move onto the acceptance study for the 5T longitudinal setting.

• Jie

Working on understanding Pengjia's BPM code.

• Toby

Working on updating the target polarizations for the HRS's. Found a bug in his code in converting UNIX times. Also developing two parallel methods to determine packing fraction, one using fits and another using simulation.

8/03/2016

Present: Ryan, Toby, Karl, Vince, Jie, Alexandre

No Presentations.

Verbal Updates:

• Jie

Got code for BPM calibration from Pengjia. Still waiting on some further explanation from Pengjia on the code. He will focus on the 5T settings first in the calibration

• Toby

Working on the g2psim package and using it for calculating the packing fraction. Replayed RHRS 5T transverse data, and according to Chao it should have final optics.

• Ryan

Has a working model dilution code.

7/27/2016

Present: Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Kalyan, JP, Karl

Feature Presentations:

• Jie

Working on trying separate two peaks in the BPM pedestal runs. It does not appear that the two peaks can be filtered based upon the frequency using an FFT. Moving forward he will check how the double peaks affect BPM calibration uncertainty and check the BPM calibration procedure. More details can be found in his slides here

• Ryan

Presented raw asymmetries with three difference acceptance cuts to highlight the angle dependence on the asymmetry in the delta-region. Was able to produce a similar trend in models using scattering angles from the data. Going forward will try to find acceptance cuts that select similar numbers of events and see if the ratio between data points is the same as the ratio of model points to do a bin-centering type correction. More details can be found in his slides here

7/20/2016

Present: Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Alexandre , Kalyan, Karl, Ellie

Verbal Updates:

• Jie

Looking into 2-peak pedestal issue for the BPMs. Checking to see if the two peaks are at different frequencies and can be separated. If they cannot then the 2-peak pedestals will increase the BPM reconstruction uncertainty at the target to ~3-4mm (from 1-2mm) for runs with the double peak. Previously Pengjia did not consider any RMS value above 2000 in his analysis.

• Toby

Still working on getting the g2p simulation package to match g2p data. Able to now produce elastic peaks in the correct locations to match data. Requesting that someone familiar with g2psim make a post on the wiki detailing the variables in the output of the simulation root tree because they are not straight-forward to understand.

• Ryan

Completed setting up a python version of the radiated model code. Uses MAID/Hall B for the polarized and Bosted for the unpolarized. Does the unpolarized and polarized elastic tail but only uses RADCOR for the inelastic radiating.

7/13/2016

Present: Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Alexandre , JP, Karl, Ellie

Feature Presentations:

• Jie

Showed a comparison between the BPM pedestals calculated during dedicated pedestal runs and during beam trips. The two methods agree, so Jie is moving forward with the beam trip method to fill in gaps for BPM pedestal calculations. His next step is to move onto checking the BPM calibration. More details can be found in his slides here

Verbal Updates:

• Toby

Still working on getting the g2p simulation package to match g2p data. This will be used for calculating the packing fraction

• Ryan

Working on producing radiated models to compare to the g2p data.

7/6/2016

Present: Ryan, Jie, Kalyan, JP, Karl, Ellie

Verbal Updates:

• Jie

Working on comparing pedestal values from dedicated pedestal runs and from beam-trip's. He's mostly found agreement and is working to settle the few outliers. After this he is moving onto to checking the BPM calibration.

• Ryan

Working on setting up radiated models to compare with the radiated data asymmetries.

6/29/2016

Present: Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Kalyan, JP, Karl, Ellie

Feature Presentations:

• Jie

Gave an update on the BPM pedestal issues. In his slides he shows the pedestal histograms to demonstrate that the pedestal value is really shifting with time. Some pedestal's also exhibit a multi-peak structure, which ultimately will effect the uncertainty of the BPM calibration. He also showed the effect of using different BPM pedestal values for different runs and effects the BPM reconstruction. The resulting BPM position change is much larger than simulation would predict indicating that again that the BPM pedestal value is really changing with time. Going forward he will look to determine an accurate BPM uncertainty from the fluctuating pedestal values. More details on his slides can be seen here.

Verbal Updates:

• Toby

Working on updating Melissa's packing fraction code to use simulation to match the quasi-elastic peak, instead of relying on fits because the packing fraction result is highly-sensitive to the fit parameters.

• Ryan

Working on raw asymmetries and comparing them with Toby to make sure they agree.

• Vince

Has updated ChiPT calculations that he will send out over the mailing list.

6/22/2016

Present: Alex, Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Kalyan

Feature Presentations:

• Toby

Received Melissa's packing fraction code. Found that there is now a difference in the nu histograms for the elastic runs when compared to what Melissa used in her analysis. Melissa's tech-note shows only a single elastic peak, but new root-files have both a elastic nitrogen and helium peak. The two peaks are separated by about 5 MeV at E0 = 2.2 GeV. The existence of an additional peak effects the applicability of Melissa's fitting routines to these new root-files. Toby will contact Melissa and see what she can provide. Slides are here.

Verbal Updates:

• Jie

Jie is still talking with Pengjia over the BPM pedestal issue. He hopes to have slides for next week's meeting.

• Ryan

Ed Folts confirmed the presence of helium bags in the septum bores and local dump box. In contact with Jessie Butler to find Ed's old pictures of the g2p target platform. Assuming helium is present in radiation thicknesses after scattering. Will update if there is any change. Tech-note with the radiation lengths can be found here

6/15/2016

Present: JP, Karl, Alex, Ryan, Toby, Chao, Jie, Vince, Ellie, Xiaochao, Kalyan

No presentations. Just verbal updated

• Jie

Jie gave a little more detail on the carbon cover from last week's slides. The carbon cover is a porous carbon sponge added to the BPM to help with radiation. This in itself shouldn't effect the pedestal but opening up the BPM to install it could have an effect. It's possible the pedestal change is also related to configuration changes in the target magnetic field. Jie will show more at meeting next week.

• Ryan

Confirmed from Chao that DP is not corrected for ELOSS. Still waiting to hear back from Ed Folts on g2p helium bags.

• Toby

Getting Melissa's packing fraction code this week. Will use it to update packing fraction calculations.

6/8/2016

Present: JP, Karl, Alex, Ryan, Toby, Chao, Jie, Vince, Ellie

Feature Presentations:

• Ryan

Gave an update on the radiation length calculation. He checked the energy loss calculation people did before and found out that we did not use the He bag during the experiment but before people built the He bag in the simulation. However the difference between He and air should not cause serious problem for us. More details can be seen in his slides here.

• Jie

Gave an update on the beam position problem. He worked together with Pengjia on this problem. The bpm database is updated so that the beam current dependence of the BPM is removed. Another problem is that the reported beam position would jump suddenly within the same momentum setting. Pengjia and he guess the pedestal of the BPM might be a possible reason. And between the two run they compared, a carbon cover was added which might influence the pedestal. So they did some study of the BPM pedestal values. The current cut Pengjia used before to select no-beam events is replaced by a more tight one. However, the results do not change much. More details can be seen in his slides here.

5/25/2016

Present: JP, Alex, Ryan, Toby, Chao, Jie, Vince, Ellie

Feature Presentations:

• Toby

Gave an update of his study on the scattering angle. The problem he mentioned on 5/11 has been solved. Both of the formulas are correct. However, he found that the central scattering angle jumped within one momentum setting for more than 3 deg. Chao mentioned that his calculation result does not show this behavior and they will discuss this offline. More details can be seen in his slides here.

5/18/2016

Present: JP, Karl, Alex, Ryan, Toby, Chao, Jie, Vince, Ellie

Feature Presentations:

• Chao

Gave an update of the acceptance study. He used the elastic scattering data to calibrate the resolution of the simulation. He found that the simulation package does not treat the resolution of the beam position properly. Thus the simulation package is updated to generate the events according to the beam profile. With this new update, the resolution of the simulation agrees with the data. More details can be seen in his slides here.

5/11/2016

Present: JP, Karl, Alex, Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Ellie

Feature Presentations:

• Toby

Gave an update of the scattering angle calculation. He used two formulas from Pengjia and Chao to calculate the scattering angle and suggests that the results do not agree. People suggests that this two methods are equivalent and we should just use one of them. More details can be seen in his slides here.

• Ryan

Gave an update of his study of the scattering angle dependence of the cross-section. He used the radiated Bosted model and calculated the cross-sections with three different scattering angle. And the results shows ~20% difference. More details can be seen in his slides here.

• Jie

Gave an update on his study of the yield drift problem. He is still working together with Pengjia to correct the beam current dependence of the beam position. He summarized the beam current distribution for all production runs and found that ~90% of our data was taken with current less than 50 nA, where the beam position need to be corrected. He also studied the "sudden jump" of the beam position which means that the BPMA and BPMB readout did not changed much but the reported beam position changed a lot. It probably could be explained by the pedestal change but still need more study. More details can be seen in his slides here.

4/20/2016

Present: JP, Karl, Alex, Chao, Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Ellie

Feature Presentations:

• Ryan

Gave an final update of the nitrogen cross-section study of the saGDH experiment. The radiative correction is done and the uncertainty carry-over from the elastic tail analysis is 1.5%. The radiative correction is calculated in two different way: the classic unfolding and the ratio of un-radiated and radiated Bosted model. He also did a bin center correction and compared the result with Vince's calculation. Two methods agrees at a 1-2% level. The radiative corrected cross-section for each kinematics setting is summarized in his slides and he will prepare a tech note for the analysis. More details can be seen in his slides here.

4/13/2016

Present: Karl, Chao, Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Ellie

Feature Presentations:

• Jie

Gave an update on his study of the yield drift problem. Last time he showed some plots which indicates that the beam position might not be accurate and he did some study on this problem. He found out that the BPM readout shows some linear relations with the beam current. After carefully check the data, it seems that only the BPM B have this correlation. And this problem could be found in all beam energy settings. The uncertainty of beam position is very large if this problem is not corrected. More details can be seen in his slides here.

• Ryan

Gave an correction to his presentation on last week. He mentioned there was a mistake when he compared the formulation for the full internal bremsstrahlung tail and the angle-peaking approximation. And the results agree after the mistake was corrected. More details can be seen in his slides here.

4/6/2016

Present: JP, Karl, Chao, Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Ellie

Feature Presentations:

• Ryan

Gave an update on his radiative correction study. He already studied the uncertainty for the elastic tail and he continued his study with the inelastic radiative correction. He explained how the angle approximation was applied in the internal bremsstrahlung. There is an equivalent correction in the angel approximation which is dropping the soft photons compare with doing a full integration. Difference between these two calculation is 5-10% for proton. He is still working on applying the calculation to other nuclei like Nitrogen. More details can be seen in his slides here.

• Toby

Gave an update on the his calculation of the asymmetry and cross-section. He applied the dilution factor calculated from the data to the asymmetry calculation. On the other side, he also applied the radiative correction factor calculated from the MAID model to the asymmetry calculation. He then applied the same factors to the cross-section calculation and got the cross-section and cross-section differences. The dilution seems not continuous and JP suggests to do a deeper study for each momentum in the longitudinal setting to understand what is the reason, for example the yield problem studied by Jie. More details can be seen in his slides here.

3/23/2016

Present: JP, Karl, Chao, Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Ellie

Feature Presentations:

• Jie

Gave an update on his study of the yield drift problem. He continued his study with dilution runs. The method he used is similar as what he did for the production runs. He made a 6mm radius circle cut and compare the simulation result with the data. There are a few runs which were measured with beam current less than 50nA. After discussion with Pengjia, Jie mentioned that those runs' BPM readout might not be accurate since the BPM is calibrated at 50nA~100nA. He will do further study together with Pengjia to understand this effect. More details can be seen in his slides here.

3/9/2016

Present: JP, Karl, Chao, Ryan, Toby, Jie, Vince, Ellie

Feature Presentations:

• Toby

Gave an update on the dilution study. He summarized the dilution calculation for the 2.2GeV 5T transverse settings. He also used the dilution result to calculate the asymmetry for this setting. The radiative correction was considered in the calculation. And he concluded that the uncertainty of the calculation is dominated by the packing fraction uncertainty. More details can be seen in his slides here.

• Ryan

Gave an update on his cross-section analysis of the small angle GDH data. Based on the discussion from previous meetings, he checked the uncertainty of the elastic tail. The calculation includes three different sources: the correction factor representing higher order virtual photon diagrams, bremsstrahlung and multiple photon corrections. For the multiple photon corrections, he mentioned that G.Miller has an alternative multiple photon correction result. He applied the calculation to the saGDH data and it seems that the Miller multiple photon result is better representation of saGDH elastic tails. More details can be seen in his slides here.

• Jie

Gave an update on his study of the yield drift problem. He and Pengjia fixed the problem in the raster size calculation. He then made some cuts on the raster size to remove the boundary effect. He mentioned some of the runs had hot spot and was able to be corrected by the raster cut. He also summarized the yield spread with raster cuts for all kinematic settings. More details can be seen in his slides here.

2/24/2016

Present: Karl, Chao, Ryan, Toby, Min, Ellie, Jie

Feature Presentations:

• Toby

Gave an update on the dilution study. He need the scattering angle to calculate the scaling factor between the carbon and nitrogen. However, his study suggests that the scattering angle calculated for the carbon target is larger than the production target. The simulation shows opposite result which is expected to be reasonable from geometries. People suggests Chao to check the scattering angle calculation in the optics package. More details can be seen in his slides here.

2/17/2016

Present: JP, Jixie, Chao, Ryan, Min, Ellie, Jie

Feature Presentations:

• Chao

Gave an update on the optics study. He finished the matrix recalibration on right arm. The database is updated and is ready to use. The RMS values for angle and momentum calibration are summarized in his presentation. JP and Jixie has some concern about the broken septa seems to cause worse effect on left arm comparing with right arm. They suggested to check this more carefully. More details can be seen in his slides here.

• Ryan

Gave an update on his cross-section analysis of the small angle GDH data. Based on the discussion from the last week's meeting, he removed the extrapolation part in RADCON and then test the code with some test cross-sections from Pbosted Model. There is no problem in this case. So he compared the Pbosted model with saGDH data at large <math>\nu</math>. He is waiting for the response from Vince about the uncertainty of the saGDH cross-section at large <math>\nu</math>. More details can be seen in his slides here.

2/10/2016

Present: JP, Karl, Alex, Jixie, Toby, Chao, Ryan, Min, Ellie, Vince

Feature Presentations:

• Ryan

Gave an update on his cross-section analysis of the small angle GDH data. He is dealing the problem that after doing the tail subtraction and radiative correction the cross sections go negative at high <math>\nu</math>. He did a refit of the few low <math>Q^2</math> points using a charge form factor fit. The results still deviated from the PBosted model at high <math>\nu</math>. However, JP and Karl suggests that the code RADCOR code should not give negative cross section result. There might be some problems in the extrapolation part. Karl suggests to check the input data to see if there are constrains at the high <math>\nu</math> region. More details can be seen in his slides here.

2/3/2016

Present: JP, Karl, Alex, Jixie, Toby, Jie, Chao, Ryan, Ellie, Vince

Feature Presentations:

• Min

Gave an update on her acceptance study. She continued to compare the simulation result with data. Since the optics database is updated with the vertical beam position correction. The result suggests that the delta distribution is improved however the phi distribution still shows large discrepancy. She used this result to calculate the acceptance factor and applied it to the cross-section calculation. The result shows a factor of two difference. JP suggests that the acceptance calculated from the compare between the simulation and the data could still be influenced by the cross-section difference at small scattering angle. More details can be seen in her slides here.

• Toby

His presentation on 1/12 is reviewed. JP mentioned his concern about the uncertainty propagation. Toby is going to check it again and update his tech note about it.

General Discussion:

• The replay package is restored on the work disk.
• Toby will talk to Melissa and take over her packing fraction study.

1/26/2016

Present: Jixie, JP
By Phone: Jie, Chao, Ryan, Ellie

General Discussion:

• The analysis meeting will be moved back to 10 am Wednesday starting from next week.
• There is no meeting room available thus everyone will join by bluejeans. The meeting ID is 4828802914.

1/12/2016

Present: Melissa, Jixie
By Phone: Jie, Chao, Ryan, Toby, Ellie

Feature Presentations:

• Ryan

Gave an update on his cross-section analysis of the small angle GDH data. yield study using simulation. He is working on the problem that after doing the tail subtraction and running the inelastic Radiative Correction code the fully corrected cross sections go negative at high <math>\nu</math>. To solve this, he did a fit on the Nitrogen form factor. During the fitting, two models is considered: the oscillator model and the Fermi Model and the Fermi Model is proved to be better. He will complete the calculation of the elastic tail by using the form factor in a few weeks. More details can be seen in his slides here.

• Toby

Gave an review on the polarization uncertainty estimation. He claimed that the reason of the small uncertainties for the target polarization is because we took large amount of TE for each material. Thus the uncertainty of the calibration constant is reduced by average. Jixie suggests that the error propagation still need to be carefully checked. More details can be seen in his slides here

General Discussion:

• Chao updated his optics technical note.
• There is no meeting next week due to the Hall A collaboration meeting.

---

Jul-Dec 2015

Minutes_Jul2015_to_Dec2015

---

Jan-Jun 2015

Minutes_Jan2015_to_June2015

---

Jul-Dec 2014

Minutes_July2014_to_Dec2014

---

Jan-Jun 2014

Minutes_Jan2014_to_June2014

---

Jun-Dec 2013

Minutes_June2013_to_Dec2013

---

Jan-May 2013

Minutes_Jan2013_to_May2013

---

April-Dec 2012

Minutes_Apr2012_to_Dec2012

---

Jan-Mar 2012

Minutes_Jan2012_to_Mar2012

---

Jul-Dec 2011

Minutes_July2011_to_Dec_2011

---

Jan-Jun 2011

Minutes_Jan2011_to_June_2011

---