[Rgc_analysis] [EXTERNAL] Re: RGC Beam Charge Asymmetry & Scaler Bank QA

Sun Sep 18 18:31:33 EDT 2022

Hello Gregory, Noémie, Sebastian,

I am sorry I could not make the 2:15 meeting today.

I have been going back and forth a bit with Nathan about the HEL::scaler bank. The problem seems to be in the decoding of the EVIO bank to the HEL::scaler bank and the issue where the bit that should indicate the difference between the stable and the settle period is not reliable. Nathan pointed out that you can look at the RAW::scaler bank, which contains both the stable and settle information, so you can untangle where the “bit flip” happens and pick the correct one, but this will be a bit more coding than just looking at the HEL::scaler bank. 

It is too early to come to a conclusion, but from some cursory looks at the data it appears that we will be able to write some code in the JAVA tools that will correct for this problem. Nathan is already working on some of the required changes to the code.

Best,
Maurik

> On Sep 14, 2022, at 1:22 PM, Gregory Matousek <gregory.matousek at duke.edu> wrote:
> 
> Yes, I will be there. I'm putting together an abridged talk which has some interesting conclusions. Hopefully I'll be able to explain things coherently enough.
> 
> See you at 2:15pm
> From: Sebastian Kuhn <kuhn at jlab.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 11:41 AM
> To: pilleux at jlab.org <pilleux at jlab.org>
> Cc: Gregory Matousek <gregory.matousek at duke.edu>; Anselm Vossen, Ph.D. <anselm.vossen at duke.edu>; rgc_analysis at jlab.org <rgc_analysis at jlab.org>; Harut Avagyan <avakian at jlab.org>; Mohammad Hattawy <hattawy at jlab.org>; Silvia Niccolai <silvia at jlab.org>; Raffaella De Vita <devita at jlab.org>; Daria Sokhan <daria at jlab.org>; Florian Hauenstein <hauenst at jlab.org>; Nathan Baltzell <baltzell at jlab.org>; Sergey Boyarinov <boiarino at jlab.org>
> Subject: Re: [Rgc_analysis] [EXTERNAL] Re: RGC Beam Charge Asymmetry & Scaler Bank QA
>  
> Dear Gregory, Carlos and Noemie,
> 
> these are very interesting findings - and I can’t say I understand exactly what you are showing and what it could mean. I tend to think that it would be important enough to discuss this today during the daily RC meeting (unfortunately starting at 2:15 p.m.), since we may actually have the opportunity to think of some kind of tests in the Hall (beam is not expected back until later this evening). If it turns out that we cannot normalize our data to helicity- and lifetime-gated FC counts, we need to act rather urgently, so I would prefer not to wait until next Tuesday’s RG-C analysis meeting. Let me know what you think and if you can attend.
> 
> - Sebastian
> 
>> On Sep 14, 2022, at 6:04 AM, pilleux at jlab.org <mailto:pilleux at jlab.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello Greg,
>> 
>> I have been wondering about the issues you show, and I asked Raffaella and
>> Nathan about it, I don't know if they had time to look into it yet.
>> 
>> As you show, for many runs there are weird HEL::scaler readings in a
>> number of files. For these files, the clock information gives crazy
>> numbers, and the accumulated charge is almost 0. Please find attached a
>> plot for run 16889 where I plot the time between two consecutive readings
>> (that I compute from the accumulated charge using the beam current). It is
>> supposed to be close to 33ms. As you show in slide 10, the first 86 files
>> look fine but the last 214 don't.
>> 
>> A problem I have with that is that the number of readings which are fine
>> change run by run, and it makes the normalization of yields, to compute
>> DSA for example, difficult. For now, all the normalizations of my dvcs
>> asymetries look crazy (even when I try to include the proportion of 'good'
>> readings in my scaling).
>> 
>> Best regards, Noémie.
>> 
>>> One more word,
>>> 
>>> The analysis can be expanded upon by not just looking at file-by-file
>>> scaler bank observables (for example, what was the fcup accumulation for
>>> file 'n') , but entry-by-entry observables. In that case, we could ask
>>> "how does the fcup accumulation evolve within the recon file itself?".
>>> Perhaps this could help us isolate more outliers or anomalies in the data.
>>> If any one has an idea of what we could investigate, feel free to let me
>>> know.
>>> 
>>> Gregory
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Gregory Matousek <gregory.matousek at duke.edu <mailto:gregory.matousek at duke.edu>>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 6:31 PM
>>> To: rgc_analysis at jlab.org <mailto:rgc_analysis at jlab.org> <rgc_analysis at jlab.org <mailto:rgc_analysis at jlab.org>>
>>> Cc: Anselm Vossen, Ph.D. <anselm.vossen at duke.edu <mailto:anselm.vossen at duke.edu>>
>>> Subject: [Rgc_analysis] [EXTERNAL] RGC Beam Charge Asymmetry & Scaler Bank
>>> QA
>>> 
>>> Hello all,
>>> 
>>>> From today's RGC meeting, we were talking about putting in more effort
>>>> into understanding the beam charge asymmetries from the faraday cup
>>>> charge accumulation. I put together a presentation here which shows some
>>>> work on just that
>>>> (https://cc.jlab.org/system/files/users/gmat%40jlab.org/Presentations/Scaler%20Bank%20QA%20for%20Target%20Polarization%20%40%20RGC.pdf<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cc.jlab.org/system/files/users/gmat*40jlab.org/Presentations/Scaler*20Bank*20QA*20for*20Target*20Polarization*20*40*20RGC.pdf__;JSUlJSUlJSUl!!OToaGQ!poBSft7q1QE-VjblFkLfXh9HGcjN1frfU9VC6AYrvF5WWO1CO_fCjHLu0CxfWhleR5s-DA8btLudX_LpgJ-8PlunFRdZ-sWwLy3v$> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cc.jlab.org/system/files/users/gmat*40jlab.org/Presentations/Scaler*20Bank*20QA*20for*20Target*20Polarization*20*40*20RGC.pdf*3Chttps:/*urldefense.com/v3/__https:/*cc.jlab.org/system/files/users/gmat*40jlab.org/Presentations/Scaler*20Bank*20QA*20for*20Target*20Polarization*20*40*20RGC.pdf__;JSUlJSUlJSUl!!OToaGQ!poBSft7q1QE-VjblFkLfXh9HGcjN1frfU9VC6AYrvF5WWO1CO_fCjHLu0CxfWhleR5s-DA8btLudX_LpgJ-8PlunFRdZ-sWwLy3v$*3E__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJS8vKioqKioqKioqJQ!!OToaGQ!sL5RlMuLSrOHoZllSwaEIA3vCLC9hoNM93etcS4QfXD-fOT5Qr2MF3PpQbcOpUrlw8CXucpgF1HrKYw-x2I$>)
>>> 
>>> In this presentation, I look into the HEL::scaler and RUN::scaler banks
>>> for Run 16889 and Run 16918 , the former having an apparent 0.6% BCA and
>>> the latter -0.02% BCA (slide 16 reports +0.02% but this is because FC+ is
>>> defined by beam/target spins parallel, where in fact it should just be
>>> helicity = +1, accounting for just HWP status). We can see anomalies in
>>> the scaler banks for both runs, which needs discussing.
>>> 
>>> Please feel free to ask any questions!
>>> 
>>> Gregory
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rgc_analysis mailing list
>>> Rgc_analysis at jlab.org <mailto:Rgc_analysis at jlab.org>
>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/rgc_analysis <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/rgc_analysis__;!!OToaGQ!sL5RlMuLSrOHoZllSwaEIA3vCLC9hoNM93etcS4QfXD-fOT5Qr2MF3PpQbcOpUrlw8CXucpgF1HrKWLRrMQ$>
>>> 
>> <readscaler.png>_______________________________________________
>> Rgc_analysis mailing list
>> Rgc_analysis at jlab.org <mailto:Rgc_analysis at jlab.org>
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/rgc_analysis <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/rgc_analysis__;!!OToaGQ!sL5RlMuLSrOHoZllSwaEIA3vCLC9hoNM93etcS4QfXD-fOT5Qr2MF3PpQbcOpUrlw8CXucpgF1HrKWLRrMQ$>
> _______________________________________________
> Rgc_analysis mailing list
> Rgc_analysis at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/rgc_analysis

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc_analysis/attachments/20220918/1997df8e/attachment-0001.html>