[Rgc_analysis] [EXTERNAL] Second Pass Results for Raster Calibration

Mon Jul 3 15:47:31 EDT 2023

Hi Derek,

your findings are quite interesting - sorry for no feedback earlier. I feel we can say 2 things:
1) Your fit is probably still biased by the outliers (the dots that fill the rectangle and don’t seem to follow the slope). One way to fix that may be to use your fit result and make a further selection: Only included data points where the vertex x or y is within +/- 0.7 cm of the PREDICTED vertex from your fit vs. ADC. This won’t cut too many data points, but maybe reduces the bias towards “flatness” of the fit. You could even iterate this: Make a new fit, and then use THAT to select the data points, etc.
2) There seems to be something not quite right yet with the way the vertex of closest approach is being calculated. I do not understand how the mean deviation of the mid-point between the 2 vertices from the fit can be an unchanging sigma of 0.38 cm no matter how tightly you control the DIFFERENCE between the 2 vertices. In other words, when you require the pi+ and e- to reconstruct to within 0.2 cm from each other in the perpendicular plane at their closest approach (which is the meaning of S_V < 0.2 cm), why you don’t reconstruct the correct position (average vertex) to at least a LITTLE BIT better precision than if you don’t have any cut on S_V at all.

Be that as it may, please keep in mind that those 0.38 cm are NOT the intrinsic uncertainty of the FIT constant - once we avoid bias (see 1 above), those will be determined to much better (in principle by a factor 1/√N) due to the high statistics of the sample. So, I am not at all ready yet to give up on this method! ;-)

Here is another thing you could try: Instead of cutting on Vz for each particle individually, you could also cut on the z-value of the point of closest approach. (Presumably, the POCA is a given by a z-value along the beam line where the 2 particle trajectories, traced back to that point, are closest to each other). That way you are really picking the events that we are most interested in = the ones which have a 3-dim. vertex inside the target.

Finally, for diagnostic purposes, it might be useful to make histograms, e.g., of this quantity (z-value of the POCA), as well as the difference between predicted vertex x and y (from the linear fit) vs. the inferred vertex from the POCA.

Thanks for working on all of this. I am not sure when there will be another RG-C analysis meeting (tomorrow is 7/4 and next week is CLAS Collaboration Meeting), but maybe we can talk during the latter.

Greetings - Sebastian

On Jun 26, 2023, at 11:19 AM, Holmberg, Derek <deholmberg at wm.edu<mailto:deholmberg at wm.edu>> wrote:

Hi Everyone,

I hope you all had a great weekend.

I attached the results from the updated analysis I had done, taking into account the additional cuts you all had recommended. As a quick summary, here are the additional cuts I had made:

  1.  A cut on

[cid:a2d607f8-7664-4d3c-8c12-204c65aa7653 at namprd09.prod.outlook.com]

  1.
  2.  A cut of all data points separated by more than 1.25 cm from the center of the target
  3.  Various cuts on the “distance of separation” (which I just labeled as

[cid:25e15070-8719-4327-ac1b-719b949738b1 at namprd09.prod.outlook.com]

  1.  ) between the reconstructed particle vertices

I also found the residual standard deviation for each of the fits. However, while changing the cuts on the distance of separation seemed to affect the calibration constants by 5-10%, the residual standard deviation for each one was practically the same at 0.38cm. Given that the 2-sigma for the fits is around 0.75cm, would this detached vtx method be precise enough to be useful? My results certainly aren’t gospel, and I’d love to hear your feedback.

When I performed the fits, I didn’t include error bars on the individual vertex positions and just fit them as-is. Is that the correct approach? I just wasn’t sure if we were going to have the analysis meeting this week because of the JLUO meeting.

I uploaded my slides to page of last week’s meeting:https://clasweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/RGC_Jun20

Sincerely,
Derek Holmberg
[cid:51a7a185-7cab-4828-a442-4d0c044904f0 at namprd09.prod.outlook.com]
[cid:3b77e80a-813a-4b02-9675-a85ce4e7f6fd at namprd09.prod.outlook.com]
[cid:41b5d6a5-edaa-404b-9266-51da0b874c9f at namprd09.prod.outlook.com]
[cid:4a1c435d-b8aa-4904-a626-60f0fe455ed6 at namprd09.prod.outlook.com]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc_analysis/attachments/20230703/3a2700b0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 889 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc_analysis/attachments/20230703/3a2700b0/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 999 bytes
Desc: image006.png
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc_analysis/attachments/20230703/3a2700b0/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1046 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc_analysis/attachments/20230703/3a2700b0/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 889 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc_analysis/attachments/20230703/3a2700b0/attachment-0009.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 568 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc_analysis/attachments/20230703/3a2700b0/attachment-0010.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 999 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc_analysis/attachments/20230703/3a2700b0/attachment-0011.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Raster Calibration Via Detached VTX 6-27-23.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1626953 bytes
Desc: Raster Calibration Via Detached VTX 6-27-23.pdf
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc_analysis/attachments/20230703/3a2700b0/attachment-0001.pdf>