[Rgc_analysis] [EXTERNAL] Question about HWP and TPol when cooking

[silvia at jlab.org]

Hello all,
Just to clarify, I have yet to put in CCDB the HWP changes on this current
run period. So unless someone else has done it, right now they are not
correctly accounted by the reconstruction and have to be corrected by hand
in the analysis.
Best regards,
Silvia


> Just to be sure, I double checked this. Here is a snippet from
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_Gregtom3_rgcTargetPolarization_blob_main_ProcessInclusive.C&d=DwIF-g&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=aSEBncnFTdfouxOejKajYG--Ygz0DFQolIcHUhF20pw&m=ip6lDgLHi8vDxcuf7kw8oQmGgq-_v4LJrtviTOFepXbs-B7ejp8SEzQ-b1TUxAZB&s=PuRx2_NuoJ5s1RtMSOnfCHLByxXZuQsgEASaQhooS6A&e=
>  . I make sure to skip events with helicity == 0. Feel free to look over
> the code to, perhaps I missed something. Point being that, in the end, the
> "hel" branch of the output TTree is what I use to read the number of
> helicity=+1 vs. -1 events.
> [https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__opengraph.githubassets.com_5e4a935c86ae2b3d5f7bc69843f3498b164cdb1eed55cb5b87fbd9e1a31d0ef0_Gregtom3_rgcTargetPolarization&d=DwIF-g&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=aSEBncnFTdfouxOejKajYG--Ygz0DFQolIcHUhF20pw&m=ip6lDgLHi8vDxcuf7kw8oQmGgq-_v4LJrtviTOFepXbs-B7ejp8SEzQ-b1TUxAZB&s=eeAxz0XxQLSygWFdLyztUYkDmUH02vQfbrNiBkf43Eo&e=
> ]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_Gregtom3_rgcTargetPolarization_blob_main_ProcessInclusive.C&d=DwIF-g&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=aSEBncnFTdfouxOejKajYG--Ygz0DFQolIcHUhF20pw&m=ip6lDgLHi8vDxcuf7kw8oQmGgq-_v4LJrtviTOFepXbs-B7ejp8SEzQ-b1TUxAZB&s=PuRx2_NuoJ5s1RtMSOnfCHLByxXZuQsgEASaQhooS6A&e=
> >
> rgcTargetPolarization/ProcessInclusive.C at main ·
> Gregtom3/rgcTargetPolarization<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_Gregtom3_rgcTargetPolarization_blob_main_ProcessInclusive.C&d=DwIF-g&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=aSEBncnFTdfouxOejKajYG--Ygz0DFQolIcHUhF20pw&m=ip6lDgLHi8vDxcuf7kw8oQmGgq-_v4LJrtviTOFepXbs-B7ejp8SEzQ-b1TUxAZB&s=PuRx2_NuoJ5s1RtMSOnfCHLByxXZuQsgEASaQhooS6A&e=
> >
> A repository for extracting the target polarization from RGC runs @ CLAS12
> - rgcTargetPolarization/ProcessInclusive.C at main ·
> Gregtom3/rgcTargetPolarization
> github.com
>
>
> [cid:794f3553-6a63-4263-aeaf-38d7cc7ca546]
> ________________________________
> From: Hayward, Timothy <timothy.hayward at uconn.edu>
> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 2:46 PM
> To: Gregory Matousek <gregory.matousek at duke.edu>
> Cc: rgc_analysis at jlab.org <rgc_analysis at jlab.org>; Anselm Vossen, Ph.D.
> <anselm.vossen at duke.edu>; Kayleigh Gates (PGR)
> <k.gates.1 at research.gla.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Rgc_analysis] [EXTERNAL] Question about HWP and TPol when
> cooking
>
> Hi Gregory,
>
> Check that you aren’t including helicity = 0 in your helicity = 1 counts
> (perhaps with some sort of “else” statement?). About 3% of events have
> unassigned helicities.
>
> Best,
> Timothy
>
> On Feb 20, 2023, at 2:41 PM, Gregory Matousek via Rgc_analysis
> <rgc_analysis at jlab.org<mailto:rgc_analysis at jlab.org>> wrote:
>
>
> *Message sent from a system outside of UConn.*
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I had a question about how helicity is stored in the HEL::online bank of
> the sidisdvcs trains ( or any hipo file for that matter ). There are
> several recent NH3 runs which I am analyzing, and I am getting some
> counterintuitive results for N+ and N- for each run. I am referring to the
> 8.5.0 HBT cooks.
>
> For example, Run 17577 has HWP in, and NMR Pt > 0. I find from my DIS
> channel that 51% of events have helicity = +1 , and the remaining 49% have
> helicity = -1. I would have initially thought that there would be more
> helicity = -1 events? I was wondering if the cooking had been accounting
> for the fact that the HWP was in, and was correctly "flipping" the
> electron's helicity when storing it in the hipo bank.
>
> Next, we look at Run 17589, with HWP out and NMR Pt>0. Here, I
> counter-intuitvely find 49% of events have helicity = +1 , and now 51%
> have helicity = -1. Again, I am just reading the entries in HEL::online.
> This is odd, because since our asymmetry is positive, this would calculate
> a negative target polarization in the end (N+ < N-)
>
> For Run 17604, with HWP out and NMR Pt <0. We find 50.88% of events with
> helicity = +1 and 49.12% with helicity = -1. This is backwards from how I
> thought the asymmetries would work.
>
> Does anybody familiar with the newest coatjava know how the HEL::online
> bank is formed? Does it read from the CCDB in anyway to adjust the
> helicity information based on the HWP or Tpol status? At the moment, the
> solution is for me to swap N+ <--> N- .
>
>
> Here, then, are the DIS polarizations I am getting for the NH3 runs. It
> looks like we were near -80% polarization two days ago.
>
> <image.png><image.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!u9u04b7XKqNsfKLVO6pOt4bRkfNXt74Uu4jQ48tx-YWjztPL_W0UIXz3AbOAnYN2pN_LALopX7PMeCFC0kW0FGok-8rP5WrnhEhR$>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rgc_analysis mailing list
> Rgc_analysis at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/rgc_analysis
>