Agenda

Attendance

Kate, Arun, Xiaochao, Gordon, Andrew, Braian, Bogdan, Ching, Faraz, Gary, Hunter, Jack, Jacob, Jimmy, Jiwan, Nilanga, Saru, Silviu, Todd, Vimukthi

Xioachao:

We currently do smearing using simc or our built in MC generator (very crude)
- always assume final state is pion-nucleon - not a true accurate cross section (could be improved)
simc for unpolarized quasi elastic only, so the presented model may very well improve the precision of the inelastic asymmetry subtraction
A lot of this is inclusive whereas we detect two particle coincidence - how applicable is this model?
- our inelastics are also coincidence
- good approximation for low Q2, but what about our higher Q2 kinematics?
charged vs neutral pions?
- see charged pions on SBS GEMs?
We assume an asymmetry and apply
The quasi elastic aspect of this model would be nice to compare to what we already have for QE simulations

We need to get feedback from Andrew on implementing the basic G4 inelastic generator - check slack

Hunter:

both energy and timing calibrations for HCal are not good enough for GEn
a new procedure for HCal probably needs to be developed for energy calibration
only done energy calibrations for kin3 using H2
- we saw energy recon toward bottom of HCal was not great for this kinematic
when did HV change for HCal?
- after 4a going into 4b
- use our knowledge of HV before and after change by interpolating between the two?
- a high voltage scan was done with HCal using LED triggers
- how do we properly calibrate 4b?
expert attention = Andrew (mostly)
do gain coefficients not change across kinematics?
- If not, maybe better to use kin2 since the data are clean and high statistics
how does coefficient vary with block number [2]
- Bogdan says peak is very wide for GEn - GMn looks better

Gary:

See email invitation, or contact Arun Tadepalli for Zoom link.