Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||
> > | 15.11.17HPTPC Sensitivities: Since the last group meeting I've run spectral function fake data fits for ND280 in Pmu - cosTheta and Pp - cos Theta. HPTPC Pmu-Tmu Flux (L), ND280 Pmu-Tmu Flux (R)![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||
08.11.17I'm now the on-call 'DAQ Expert'. Wednesday's are the beam maintenance day so I've been taking the different subsystems in and out of global/local so that they can do their individual tests today. I've had no major issues to deal with so far | |||||||||||||||||||
Line: 1861 to 1903 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||
> > | 08.11.17I'm now the on-call 'DAQ Expert'. Wednesday's are the beam maintenance day so I've been taking the different subsystems in and out of global/local so that they can do their individual tests today. I've had no major issues to deal with so far Single Transverse Variables - ND280/HPTPC Comparison: Have previously shown results from HPTPC fits in p-cosTheta and in STVs, and ND280 fits in p-cosTheta. I've now run an ND280 fit in STVs to see if the gain is due to the combination of HPTPC and STVs and not just the STVs. For the STV fits, the combination of variables which changed the most under cross section parameter variations us used for each sample.![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||
01.11.17Made distributions of events in P_mu - cosTheta and P_p - cosTheta, for both SF and RFG nuclear models. I've fitted the SF as data to the RFG as MC for both sets of variables, and also did RFG Asimov fits. | |||||||||||||||
Line: 1810 to 1854 | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
01.11.17 | ||||||||
Line: 6 to 6 | ||||||||
Lepton Momentum - cos Theta: | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | SF 'Data', RFG Nominal MC RFG Asimov | |||||||
> > | ...................SF 'Data', RFG Nominal MC........................................................... RFG Asimov | |||||||
![]() ![]() | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | SF 'Data', RFG Nominal MC RFG Asimov | |||||||
> > | ...................SF 'Data', RFG Nominal MC........................................................... RFG Asimov | |||||||
![]() ![]() | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | SF 'Data', RFG Nominal MC RFG Asimov | |||||||
> > | ...................SF 'Data', RFG Nominal MC........................................................... RFG Asimov | |||||||
![]() ![]() | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | SF 'Data', RFG Nominal MC RFG Asimov | |||||||
> > | ...................SF 'Data', RFG Nominal MC........................................................... RFG Asimov | |||||||
![]() ![]() | ||||||||
Line: 45 to 45 | ||||||||
Also, this week the TPC was repaired and I was volunteered to help with the removal of the TPC panel. This involved unscrewing the panel, attaching it to the crane, and holding it steady as it was lifted away. I then helped replace the cover today in a process pretty much the reversal of the removal. | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | ![]() | |||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | ||||||||
25.10.17HPTPC Sensitivity: | ||||||||
Line: 1806 to 1809 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||
> > | 01.11.17Made distributions of events in P_mu - cosTheta and P_p - cosTheta, for both SF and RFG nuclear models. I've fitted the SF as data to the RFG as MC for both sets of variables, and also did RFG Asimov fits. Lepton Momentum - cos Theta: SF 'Data', RFG Nominal MC RFG Asimov![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||||
25.10.17HPTPC Sensitivity: | |||||||||||||||||
Line: 1752 to 1798 | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
25.10.17 |
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | 25.10.17HPTPC Sensitivity: Previously I showed the ratio of SF to RFG events in P-cosTheta space. This is just showing the same plots but for q^2 - cos theta. After posting I realise the titles don't distinguish SF/RFG. The pattern for each sample is SF, RFG, ratio. CC0Pi0P:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Also lots of DAQ expert training/reading - and surviving the typhoon! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
18.10.17HPTPC Single Transverse Variables | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Line: 1686 to 1734 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | 18.10.17HPTPC Single Transverse Variables Gave a talk on HPTPC sensitivity studies at the Near Detector Upgrade workshop before the T2K collaboration meeting. In doing so I realised I'd never really made a full overlay plot comparing HPTPC, ND280 and HPTPC with STV comparison plot. These are shown below. For the STV fit (yellow), the kinematic variable is for each sample is whichever changed the most under xsec parameter variations. These are shown in the table below the images. For the other fits the variables are lepton momentum and angle for all samples.![]() ![]() ![]() | |||||||
04.10.17I've taken out the RFG weighting, and also changed the value of the MAQE and MEC parameters to reproduce the ratio plots for the 2D distributions (but for HPTPC events). There's a much bigger difference than when just changing individual cross section parameters, as expected. There seems to be much less change when there is a pion involved. | ||||||||
Line: 1648 to 1684 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | 04.10.17I've taken out the RFG weighting, and also changed the value of the MAQE and MEC parameters to reproduce the ratio plots for the 2D distributions (but for HPTPC events). There's a much bigger difference than when just changing individual cross section parameters, as expected. There seems to be much less change when there is a pion involved. The z axis is events per 100 MeV per '0.1 cos theta', apart from the ratio plots, which are Spectra Function to Nominal. Lepton Momentum and Angle: CC0Pi0P:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() I've now made the plots for Data Fit of my reproduction of this year's OA. These all look like those in TN-324, and the event rates match up. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Also packing! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
27.09.17New variables were not giving the change in distributions that we expected. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Line: 1548 to 1613 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||
> > | 27.09.17New variables were not giving the change in distributions that we expected. The number of events changes for different variables, so something is going wrong for a small number of events. When printing out the variables I didn't see any unphysical values, so this I haven't got to the bottom of that yet. (Patrick showed me how to do integrals including the over/under-fill bins so it's definitely not leptons with >30GeV) To check how the hadronic variables are correlated to the leptonic ones, I plotted Lepton Momentum against Proton Momentum, and Lepton Angle against Proton Angle.![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() I've started making plots from my reproduction of this years near detector OA. The event rates match up with those in the technical note. These are the constraints on the Asimov fit for xsec and beam parameters. I will do the same for the data fit this afternoon. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Also helped move stuff about in the lab and reading up on cross section models | ||||||||||||||||||
20.09.17I'd been changing each parameter of the cross section model 1 by 1, by 1 sigma, to see how this affected the spectra of each kinematic variable. | |||||||||||||||||||
Line: 1514 to 1539 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | 30.08.17 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | 20.09.17I'd been changing each parameter of the cross section model 1 by 1, by 1 sigma, to see how this affected the spectra of each kinematic variable. I found that the difference in the spectra (the ratio of events in each bin before and after the 1 sigma variation) was smaller for cos Alpha and cos Phi.To investigate if this was because the angles are 'cos-ed' I made the non cos-ed kinematic variables and fitted in these. I did not find that the change increased substantially.dAlpha 1Pi0P:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Also helped remove/reattach the clean tent leg and tidy up in the lab 30.08.17 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Light Leak Tests: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Line: 193 to 306 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Transverse Variables: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | I've now run fits in each of the new transverse variables, with one of the old variables (P-cos(dAlpha), P-cos(dPhi), P_pion-cos(θ), fits in P_proton-cos(θ) and dP-cos(θ) have given me results where the post fit values are very different from the priors). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | I've now run fits in each of the new transverse variables, with one of the old variables (P-cos(dAlpha), P-cos(dPhi), P_pion-cos(\x{03b8}), fits in P_proton-cos(\x{03b8}) and dP-cos(\x{03b8}) have given me results where the post fit values are very different from the priors). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() ![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | In green is the plot for proton mormentum. The log likelihood plot for this fit was a lot different to the others (less mixing, slower convergence) so something has gone wrong. I'm currently running tests on how I've binned the monte-carlo data in each variable, to see how this affects the constraints, as for the other combinations of variables that I've done so far the uncertainties are still larger than for the old variables, P-cos(θ). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | In green is the plot for proton mormentum. The log likelihood plot for this fit was a lot different to the others (less mixing, slower convergence) so something has gone wrong. I'm currently running tests on how I've binned the monte-carlo data in each variable, to see how this affects the constraints, as for the other combinations of variables that I've done so far the uncertainties are still larger than for the old variables, P-cos(\x{03b8}). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() ![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Line: 1334 to 1447 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | 30.08.17Light Leak Tests: I covered each of the cameras with black felt, one by one, and then all together, to try and see where the light is getting in. The results are shown in this pdf: LightTests.pdf When each camera is covered, the structure in that camera's image is reduced. The others are reduced as well but by less. I don't understand why when camera 3 is covered, the structure is larger in the other images. I would have thought it was something wrong with the run, but the structure is less in the camera 3 image for it. For each camera, when all the cameras were covered the light leak is reduced, but not gone entirely. This could be because my putting of the felt on the cameras wasn't light tight. Or could mean there's light coming from elsewhere as well. But we see the light leak with the shutter closed (right), identical to having the shutter open (left):![]() ![]() | |||||||
23.08.17This Year's Near Detector Analysis: | ||||||||
Line: 1296 to 1331 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | 23.08.17This Year's Near Detector Analysis: My fit which should reproduce this summer's near detecter analysis is now running. Initially had crashes due to root/gsl/psyche but these now sorted. When it finishes will see how to make the relevant plots and see if results are the same Transverse Variables: I've made pdfs with plots showing how the spectra of the new variables vary when each parameter of the cross section model is varied by +/- 1 sigma. dP_cosTheta_var_Spectra.pdf, P_cosAlpha_var_Spectra.pdf, P_cosPhi_var_Spectra.pdf, P_cosTheta_var_Spectra.pdf, Pproton_cosTheta_var_Spectra.pdf, Ppion_cosTheta_var_Spectra.pdf I went through and looked at which spectra varied the most for which samples, and which cross section parameter changes caused them. Definition of the variables:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
09.08.17Transverse Variables: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Line: 1130 to 1242 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||
> > | 09.08.17Transverse Variables: Have re-run fits for all the new variables. Had crashes over the weekend for Pion and Proton momentum, but increasing the required momentum on the Farm script seems to solve that. Those two fits will finish today, the results of the rest are shown below:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||
02.08.17CUDA: | |||||||||||||||||||
Line: 1087 to 1121 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||
> > | 02.08.17CUDA: Last week I was at a CUDA course in Oxford. CUDA is a parallel computing platform, that multi-threads NVIDIA GPUs to run programs/algorithms quicker. MaCh3 is written so that it can be run with or without CUDA, I just need to get access to an NVIDIA GPU. At the course there were both lectures and practical sessions, so I was able to write my own basic kernels, the functions that multiple threads on the GPU run in parallel. Transverse Variables: I've now run fits in each of the new transverse variables, with one of the old variables (P-cos(dAlpha), P-cos(dPhi), P_pion-cos(θ), fits in P_proton-cos(θ) and dP-cos(θ) have given me results where the post fit values are very different from the priors).![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||
19.07.17CCD Characterisation: | |||||||||||||||||||||
Line: 59 to 99 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Investigating whether light leak is coming through the back of the cameras or from another flange. | |||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||
< < | This is the average image without the bias subtracted for the __ camera. Exposure 10s, 360 images, 2x2 binning, -25°C. | ||||||||||||||||||||
> > | This is the average image without the bias subtracted for the __ camera. Exposure 10s, 360 images, 2x2 binning, -25°C. | ||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||
Line: 67 to 107 | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||
< < | For the same camera, the average frame with the shutter closed is does not show the leak (could not take more than 50 bias frames). Exposure 10s, 360 frames, 2x2 binning, -25°C.![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||
> > | For the same camera, the average frame with the shutter closed is does not show the leak (could not take more than 50 bias frames). Exposure 10s, 360 frames, 2x2 binning, -25°C.![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||
The bias subtracted average frame: | |||||||||||||||||||||
Line: 1037 to 1077 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
19.07.17 | ||||||||
Line: 16 to 16 | ||||||||
This value gets multiplied by the exposure time, so having a lower dark current reduces the amount the noise increases with increasing exposure: | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | ![]() | |||||||
![]() | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | I spoke to Gabriella about this calculation, but I suspect it's an error here rather than the CCDs behaving peculiarly. I'd expect the noise to increase with exposure, and Gabriela's plots show this happening. | |||||||
> > | I spoke to Gabriella about this calculation, but I suspect it's an error here rather than the CCDs behaving peculiarly. We'd expect the noise to increase with exposure, and Gabriela's plots show this happening. | |||||||
Transverse Variables: | ||||||||
Line: 28 to 30 | ||||||||
This has now been rectified and the results of the first fit, in delta P and cos theta are shown below: | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | ![]() ![]() | |||||||
As these fits finish, I will begin to calculate the error on the predicted event rates at SK, and see which combination of variables gives the best constraint.
| ||||||||
Line: 1028 to 1034 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
19.07.17 | ||||||||
Line: 12 to 12 | ||||||||
The flat exposure predictions for the first three cameras are due to the lower dark current for them: | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | ![]() | |||||||
> > | ![]() | |||||||
This value gets multiplied by the exposure time, so having a lower dark current reduces the amount the noise increases with increasing exposure: |
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||
> > | 19.07.17CCD Characterisation: I have plotted the noise against exposure and binning for each of the 4 CCDs, with the shutters closed.![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||
12.07.17Transverse Variables: | |||||||||||||||||||||
Line: 987 to 1019 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
12.07.17 | ||||||||
Line: 26 to 26 | ||||||||
![]() | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | For the same camera, the average frame with the shutter closed is shown below (could not take more than 50 bias frames). Exposure 10s, 360 frames, 2x2 binning, -25°C.![]() | |||||||
> > | The 10 bias images taken in the run along with the shutter being open also show the light leak:
![]() ![]() | |||||||
The bias subtracted average frame: | ||||||||
Line: 34 to 38 | ||||||||
But the run with the shutter closed was taken much later in the day than when it was open. Because I wasn't doing bias and events in the same run, we're not comparing like with like. It was much darker when the shutter-closed images were taken. | ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | The 10 bias images taken in the run along with the shutter being open did show the light leak:
![]() | |||||||
So I am now taking a run with 50 bias and 50 events, and will repeat this and add them all up so that we're comparing like with like. Before this, I plotted the value of the noise for varying exposure and binning. These don't follow the predicted trends but can perhaps be understood in the context of the light leak. |
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
12.07.17 | |||||||||
Line: 24 to 24 | |||||||||
This is the average image without the bias subtracted for the __ camera. Exposure 10s, 360 images, 2x2 binning, -25°C. | |||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||
< < | For the same camera, the average bias frame is shown below. Exposure 10s, 360 bias frames, 2x2 binning, -25°C. | ||||||||
> > | ![]() ![]() | ||||||||
The bias subtracted average frame: | |||||||||
Added: | |||||||||
> > | ![]() ![]() | ||||||||
Before this, I plotted the value of the noise for varying exposure and binning. These don't follow the predicted trends but can perhaps be understood in the context of the light leak.
![]() ![]() | |||||||||
Line: 971 to 983 | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Added: | |||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | 05.06.17 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | 12.07.17Transverse Variables: Have begun rebinning the spectra as normalisation pushed everything into the extreme bins. I've checked the raw data and this isn't because the data is at cos = +/- 1, just very close to it. I've finished rebinning for alpha, so have begun a fit! This is in cos alpha - momentum of final state lepton. The projection of the cos alpha axis in the spectrum for CC0Pi1P events is shown below, by bin number:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 05.07.17 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Transverse Variables: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Line: 898 to 954 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | 28.06.17 | |||||||
> > | 05.06.17Transverse Variables: Last week I showed how changing parameters in the cross section model by +/- 1 sigma changed the transverse variable spectra. The plots were for the MAQE parameter, for which sigma ~0.06. This is slightly higher than the value we were discussing last week, so the spectra have changed a bit less than we'd thought and would have expected, but not so much that we think they are incorrect. I've normalised the bins of the transverse variable spectra by area, to see if some of the unexpected structure was down to binning effects. This has got rid of the gaps in the spectra, and the double peaks. But now everything has been condensed into the few most extreme bins so I am currently rebinning and checking that values are not exactly +/-1 but just very close. Once we're happy with these spectra I will move onto fits, and seeing which combination variables give the best fit. I will also produce the spectra and fits with the proton and pion momenta. CCD Characterisation: I had a long Skype call with Gabriela to discuss her code and how she produced the plots in her thesis chapter on CCDs. I now understand her code for calculating the predicted noise from the manufacturer's specifications and comparing this to the measured noise, and have made the changes needed to get the plots out that we want. But when I plot the dark box data we get no increase in noise with exposure time, and linear increase in noise with binning. The latter we'd expect if binning was not done in hardware but this is not the case. The first points on the plots are in better agreement with the predicted noise than the plot from last week, so if the exposure time and binning dependancies are corrected we should hopefully get the predicted noise values. I've retaken the data on the vessel to see if we get the same results, and am waiting to analyse them now. 28.06.17 | |||||||
Transverse Variables: |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
28.06.17 | ||||||||
Line: 30 to 30 | ||||||||
I'm currently checking through the code how the predicted noise is calculated. I've emailed Gabriela about the rms value I've used for the measured noise, and also what the error bars mean. I've just left them in from what was in the code for now. I will also check with her about how she scaled with temperature as that might be where differences have entered. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Note: The 10s data point here is at a different temperature to the others so it is not surprising that it doesn't rise as much as the prediction. I will change this so the prediction accounts for this too | |||||||
> > | Note: The 10s data point here is at a different temperature to the others so it is not surprising that it doesn't rise as much as the prediction. I will change this so the prediction accounts for this too.
2x2 binning:
![]() | |||||||
21.06.17 | ||||||||
Line: 867 to 871 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
28.06.17 | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | Transverse Variables:
I've now got the spectra for each of the new kinematic variables: TransverseVariableSpectra.pdf
Looking into:
-Why are there a gaps in the peaks in 2D spectra
-Are the events which are all in extreme bins exactly cos = +/-1
-Normalising bins by area
-Are these physically what we expect e.g why does 0piNp favour cos alpha and cos phi =-1
I've looked at how changing each parameter of the cross section model by +/- 1 sigma affects these spectra.
To avoid showing ~5500 plots, I've just attached results for varying the MAQE parameter by -1sigma: dP.pdf, dalpha.pdf, dphi.pdf
Seems to be less of an effect when there's a pion involved (but note the z axis scales change)
CCD Characterisation:
With Yuri's help, have got Gabriela's ccd characterisation code running for analysis of dark box runs. However, the first plot I've got out for 1x1 binning shows us getting less noise than predicted using the manufacturer's specifications.
![]() | |||||||
21.06.17Transverse Variables: | ||||||||
Line: 836 to 866 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||
Added: | |||||||||
> > | 28.06.17 | ||||||||
21.06.17Transverse Variables: | |||||||||
Line: 830 to 832 | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Added: | |||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
21.06.17 | ||||||||
Line: 6 to 6 | ||||||||
I ran a fit in p-cos theta with the events scaled by 0.1. The results from this are in agreement with the same fit but with the version of MaCh3 that doesn't take in transverse variables as well. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | ![]() | |||||||
> > | ![]() | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | ![]() | |||||||
> > | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |||||||
14.06.17 | ||||||||
Line: 795 to 829 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||
> > | 21.06.17Transverse Variables: I ran a fit in p-cos theta with the events scaled by 0.1. The results from this are in agreement with the same fit but with the version of MaCh3 that doesn't take in transverse variables as well.![]() ![]() | ||||||||||
14.06.17Resolution Scan: | |||||||||||
Line: 741 to 751 | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Line: 780 to 790 | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
14.06.17 | ||||||||
Line: 52 to 52 | ||||||||
When we know camera is working as it should we can light leak check, and want to be doing this for each flange installation. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Once 4 shooter running will do same characterisation for 1sh using windows interface. Will then try to help Yuir integrate 1sh into linux | |||||||
> > | Once 4 shooter running will do same characterisation for 1sh using windows interface. Will then try to help Yuri integrate 1sh into linux | |||||||
07.06.17 |
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||
> > | 14.06.17Resolution Scan: Scan with events scaled by 0.1 is currently running. I will plot the ratio of each xsec parameter value uncertainty for HPTPC to ND280, and will then focus on a few parameters where HPTPC has the greatest effect. For these, I'll plot the uncertainties at different resolutions. But haven't done an ND280 fit with events scaled by 0.1. This is now running. In the mean time, below is plot of ratios of uncertainties to show what I mean. This is the ratio of 2x the resolution to original HPTPC fit. i.e for values <1, having better resolution has decreased the uncertainty:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||
07.06.17Mark Scott told me how to correct the bug that was causing the cut off in HPTPC fake data. This was due to the order in when we were checking if the highest momentum negative track exists and selecting the lepton track. This solves the issue, as an example, the momentum-theta plot for CC0pi0p events is below: | |||||||||||||||
Line: 719 to 773 | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||
> > | 07.06.17Mark Scott told me how to correct the bug that was causing the cut off in HPTPC fake data. This was due to the order in when we were checking if the highest momentum negative track exists and selecting the lepton track. This solves the issue, as an example, the momentum-theta plot for CC0pi0p events is below:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Original Mom, Lower Theta ![]() Lower Mom, Lower Theta ![]() Higher Mom, Higher Theta ![]() Original Mom, Higher Theta ![]() Lower Mom, Higher Theta ![]() Last Thursday I went to see Patrick and we got started on implementing transverse variables into MaCh3 fits. This is involving changes to samplePDFND2014 which I'm still doing but know what I need to do in the immediate future. I'll now go every Thursday. I haven't had chance to finish off the macro to look at total noise from dark box images to see if the camera is heating up with each image taken, but is ongoing. | ||||||||||||||||||
31.05.17Went to Collaboration Meeting in Tokai, and gave update at ND Upgrade workshop. | |||||||||||||||||||
Line: 661 to 710 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
31.05.17 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Line: 18 to 18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
< < | In the lab: Leak checking and vessel conditioning are still dependent on parts. TPC construction has started. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > | In the lab: Leak checking and vessel conditioning are still dependent on parts. TPC construction starting when clean tent clean, or construct then clean downstairs?
Particle Counts:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | 31.05.17Went to Collaboration Meeting in Tokai, and gave update at ND Upgrade workshop. Here, I spoke to Mark Scott about the cutoff in the fake data at around cos theta = 0.2. I was able to show him exactly what was happening, and he said there was likely a bug. Have left it with him for now. Also spoke to Simon Bienstock about new splines he'd sent me. These are compatible with new cross section. I've got latest version of MaCh3 also compatible with new cross section, but getting crashes. Simon said the splines files may well not work with MaCh3. I think this is the case rather than it being an issue with new version of MaCh3. Still running resolution scan for HPTPC momentum and angle. Haven't got on a cluster computer yet, will do this asap. Going to Imperial tomorrow to talk about getting transverse variables involved in these fits. Will now go every Thursday so should start making progress with this now.Yuri's shown me how to use m3DAQ for taking dark box images, and software for analysis. I'm writing a macro to get integrated noise for each image in a run. Want to see if this increases with number of images taken, to see if camera is warming and causing an effect. Here's an example of an image taken with 2 second exposure, showing large 'spot': ![]() Last update I showed results of a fit where all events were scaled by 0.1. For the MEC (O) parameter of cross section model, the pre and post fit values differed. This is due to the gaussian distribution being cut off at 0: ![]() | |||||||
17.05.17Am proceeding without the backward going HMNT as this gets rid of cut off at cos theta = 0.2. | ||||||||
Line: 598 to 624 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
17.05.17 | |||||||||||||||||||
Line: 16 to 16 | |||||||||||||||||||
![]() ![]() | |||||||||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||
< < | Improvement in match up of pre and post fit values for NC Coherent Norm. But worse for Eb (O). | ||||||||||||||||||
> > | Improvement in match up of pre and post fit values for NC Coherent Norm. But worse for Eb (O). Still get 'over-constraint' for CA5 RES, MA RES, Bg RES, and CC Nue Norm.
The flux parameters are much the same.
Scaling Events:
I then ran a chain where each event is scaled by a factor of 0.1. This was because I hadn't been worrying about POT weighting while just trying to get a fit out that worked.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() HPTPC Resolution Scan: I've started a chain where I've changed the momentum resolution of the detector. I'm going to scan through different resolutions for momentum and angle to see effect on constraints. Chain running at the moment has increased momentum resolution by a factor of 2, but is still running. Will need to run lots of chains to complete this study but each is taking ~1.5 days. I spoke to MaCh3 people about changing step size but already at roughly optimal fraction of events accepted (step size 0.05, ~20% accepted). Perhaps could use less steps (running 500,00 at the moment) for this study? Or just keep going. Latest Cross Section Model: Have installed latest version of MaCh3 and made my changes so it is now compatible with proton multiplicity samples and psyche truth selections. It all compiles now, I just need to update where the splines files are and then can try to run a chain. I don't expect the chain to run first time out the box but on course to have it running by the end of the week. Lab: M3 Slow and DAQ hard drives are now in their original boxes from MIT. These have new IP addresses:
Also, I think my abstract has been accepted for PGR conference so need to prepare that and nearer the time request a practice talk. And need to finish 1st year report. | ||||||||||||||||||
10.05.17 | |||||||||||||||||||
Line: 533 to 589 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | 17.05.17Am proceeding without the backward going HMNT as this gets rid of cut off at cos theta = 0.2. I've rebinned the fake data so the bigger bins at higher momenta aren't filled as much. This is shown below for CC0pi0p events:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |||||||
10.05.17Now have full splines files: | ||||||||
Line: 513 to 531 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10.05.17 | ||||||||
Line: 512 to 512 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | 10.05.17Now have full splines files:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() For the TREx-MaCh3 interface, I've emailed Jen a list of the variables needed for the inputs. She's going to send the formats of how these are outputted. Once I've got those and have started coding up the interface properly it should become clearer exactly what's required and can then get more information from Jen if needed. | |||||||
04.05.17Since last meeting I rebinned the HPTPC fake data being produced in MaCh3. The old binning was designed for 2\pi angular coverage, but have 4\pi for HPTPC. Below is a comparison of old and new binning for cc0pi0p sample: | ||||||||
Line: 458 to 509 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
04.05.17 | ||||||||
Line: 18 to 18 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | I've now got the first nominal fit working. It was 500,000 steps. The comparison plots of posterior and prior parameter values and uncertainties are shown below for the cross section and beam models:
![]() ![]() Also in the process of getting larger splines files. These have been produced by Simon Bienstock who has put them on IRODs for me and I am in the process of getting access/permissions to download these. Some of them are compatible with the latest xsec model. Then next steps are adding anti neutrino samples, including proton and pion information and transverse variables, and using the updated xsec model when it's merged. | |||||||
12.04.17Think I've almost got the fit behaving as expected. | ||||||||
Line: 181 to 197 | ||||||||
01.03.17 | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Have now produced a MaCh3 executable which adds the correct Truth Selections Initially had issues with the syntax of the name of selections Then selection source codes were looking for a file which I didn't have, but this file isn't needed in HPTPC truth selections | |||||||
> > | Have now produced a MaCh3 executable which adds the correct Truth Selections Initially had issues with the syntax of the name of selections Then selection source codes were looking for a file which I didn't have, but this file isn't needed in HPTPC truth selections | |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Then had break segementation violation as when filling the data from the samples it was looking for Momentum rather than TrueMomentum. | |||||||
> > | Then had break segementation violation as when filling the data from the samples it was looking for Momentum rather than TrueMomentum. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Now getting errors going over edge of an array when filling bins, so currently trying to see if that's due to something I've changed or something I should change Once finished debugging, will have fake data for HPTPC
| |||||||
> > | Now getting errors going over edge of an array when filling bins, so currently trying to see if that's due to something I've changed or something I should change Once finished debugging, will have fake data for HPTPC
| |||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
22.02.17 | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | For last few weeks I haven't been doing what I thought I'd been doing. I was making fake data with Psyche rather than MaCh3. | |||||||
> > | For last few weeks I haven't been doing what I thought I'd been doing. I was making fake data with Psyche rather than MaCh3. | |||||||
Am now making an MaCh3 executable for HPTPC, with the samples/selections needed. Will then produce the fake data with MaCh3, and fit it. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | When I'd fitted this fake data before I was getting the same likelihoods. This is because I was fitting it incorrectly | |||||||
> > | When I'd fitted this fake data before I was getting the same likelihoods. This is because I was fitting it incorrectly | |||||||
Prior to that, I'd had an issue with Psyche so copied in a backup version so recreated the fake data to check that hadn't affected anything. | ||||||||
Line: 224 to 239 | ||||||||
--Need to understand all the outputs of MaCh3 | ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
01.02.17Have now got new psyche code working. Added a string as argument of addSelection function, which says which selection is using the sample. Using this, I recreated Fake Data for HPTPC and ND280 to check it's still the same as before changing the code. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | ![]() | |||||||
> > | ![]() | |||||||
![]() | ||||||||
Line: 254 to 268 | ||||||||
Need to look at how best to rebin the data so not all in same few bins. Will talk to people at collaboration meeting next week about how to go about varying the cross-section model. | ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
10.01.17Still haven't fitted ND280 and HPTPC fake data with MaCh3. | ||||||||
Line: 268 to 281 | ||||||||
Currently mapping selections to samples, to be able to add sample parameter to addSelection function. Will then run ND280 and HPTPC fake data through MaCh3. | ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
14.12.16Mark Scott sent over updated psyche code with truth based selection class, along with an example truth spline file. | ||||||||
Line: 315 to 327 | ||||||||
![]() | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Appear negatively correlated (?). As bin numbers get further apart, bins become less correlated: | |||||||
> > | Appear negatively correlated (?). As bin numbers get further apart, bins become less correlated: | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | ![]() | |||||||
> > | ![]() | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | ![]() | |||||||
> > | ![]() | |||||||
Still need to investigate other branches in tree. | ||||||||
Line: 327 to 339 | ||||||||
- MaCh3 | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Had meeting with Mark Scott: | |||||||
> > | Had meeting with Mark Scott: | |||||||
- Going to go to Imperial to talk through code with Patrick - Run Near Detector fit
Get MaCh3 to run truth selection for variations with underlying cross-section models - If goes well in ND fits, push to oscillation fits | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Aim to have test fit done by Christmas | |||||||
> > | Aim to have test fit done by Christmas | |||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < | ||||||||
23.11.16Solved issue running MaCh3. Installing/setting up environment for splines was main issue. | ||||||||
Line: 446 to 456 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||
Added: | |||||||||
> > | 04.05.17Since last meeting I rebinned the HPTPC fake data being produced in MaCh3. The old binning was designed for 2\pi angular coverage, but have 4\pi for HPTPC. Below is a comparison of old and new binning for cc0pi0p sample:![]() ![]() ![]() | ||||||||
12.04.17Think I've almost got the fit behaving as expected. | |||||||||
Line: 424 to 442 | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Added: | |||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||
> > | 12.04.17Think I've almost got the fit behaving as expected. I hadn't been adding the fake data in my MaCh3 executable in the right way to be fitted. I ran a shorter (50,000) step chain and the mean values of the parameters seem to match the inputted values. A 500,000 step chain died last night (due to linappserv rather than code crashing), but got ~130,000 steps. Log Likelihood convergences:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||
05.04.17Found issue with xsection weightings. These were also being read from splines file in a way I hadn't realised. | |||||||||||||||||||||
Line: 387 to 414 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||
> > | 05.04.17Found issue with xsection weightings. These were also being read from splines file in a way I hadn't realised. When this was set to read in as CC0pi0p for all events the flux weighting was more reasonable, and samplepdf integrals are no longer negative or zero. I ran a 500,000 step chain overnight, and LogL converges:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
| ||||||||||||
29.03.17By setting flux weighting to 1 whenever it was <0 (had been -999 for certain events), have got rid of the 'curtain' of points above the convergence line for the sample log likelihood (before on the left, after on the right): | |||||||||||||
Line: 342 to 370 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||||
< < |
| ||||||||||||
> > |
| ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Line: 353 to 381 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||
> > | 29.03.17By setting flux weighting to 1 whenever it was <0 (had been -999 for certain events), have got rid of the 'curtain' of points above the convergence line for the sample log likelihood (before on the left, after on the right):![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() On Friday, I spoke to Patrick about getting pion and proton information in my MaCh3 fits. What I've done has given me crashes, but should be fairly straight forward so just need to spend some time looking into that. I've commented it out for now while I'm getting original fit to work. Also discussed smoothing the interface between TREX and MaCh3, so that information from TREX outputs can be inputted into MaCh3. Also have been helping unpack equipment in lab, and preparing talks for symposium and T2K UK meeting. | ||||||||||||||||
22.03.17Working through issues with truth studies for HPTPC with MaCh3: | |||||||||||||||||
Line: 315 to 345 | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | 22.03.17Working through issues with truth studies for HPTPC with MaCh3:
![]()
![]()
| |||||||
15.03.17Still trying to fit HPTPC fake data with MaCh3. | ||||||||
Line: 289 to 312 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | 15.03.17Still trying to fit HPTPC fake data with MaCh3.
![]() Also battling blue screen of death laptop problems at the moment. | |||||||
08.03.17MaCh3 execuable now adds the correct Truth Selections. Am able to recreate the fake data histograms I produced in psyche with makefakedata.exe. |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | 08.03.17MaCh3 execuable now adds the correct Truth Selections. Am able to recreate the fake data histograms I produced in psyche with makefakedata.exe. Below is an example of this, for the momentum and angle of the outgoing lepton in CC0Pi0P interactions.![]() ![]() ![]() Last week had problems as some of the Truth Selections required a file I didn't have. This was ND280 upgrade specific so I didn't need it at the time but will be doing ND280 upgrade studies soon so have now got this code. It contains 2D histograms (cos\theta and momentum) of the efficiencies for muons, protons, and pions, reconstruction, and mis-identification of particles as muons and pions. | |||||||
01.03.17Have now produced a MaCh3 executable which adds the correct Truth SelectionsInitially had issues with the syntax of the name of selections Then selection source codes were looking for a file which I didn't have, but this file isn't needed in HPTPC truth selections | ||||||||
Line: 235 to 268 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | 01.03.17Have now produced a MaCh3 executable which adds the correct Truth SelectionsInitially had issues with the syntax of the name of selections Then selection source codes were looking for a file which I didn't have, but this file isn't needed in HPTPC truth selections
Once finished debugging, will have fake data for HPTPC
| |||||||
22.02.17For last few weeks I haven't been doing what I thought I'd been doing. I was making fake data with Psyche rather than MaCh3. |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | 22.02.17For last few weeks I haven't been doing what I thought I'd been doing. I was making fake data with Psyche rather than MaCh3. Am now making an MaCh3 executable for HPTPC, with the samples/selections needed. Will then produce the fake data with MaCh3, and fit it. When I'd fitted this fake data before I was getting the same likelihoods. This is because I was fitting it incorrectly Prior to that, I'd had an issue with Psyche so copied in a backup version so recreated the fake data to check that hadn't affected anything. This was identical to how it was before. Below is an example of the data for CC0Pi0P interactions:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |||||||
15.02.17At collaboration meeting, I attended talks on the ECAL, NIWG, cross-section, BANFF, OA, ND upgrade, and plenary sessions on all aspects of the experiment. |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
15.02.17 | ||||||||
Line: 6 to 6 | ||||||||
Haven't got to the bottom of why the likelihoods for the fitting of the two fake data sets (HPTPC and ND280) are the same. But there's still a few things I need to check. | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | --Need to make sure I fully understand the configuration file --and also what different executables do | |||||||
Once I'm sure the fittings have worked correctly, will look at how best to vary cross-section model and compare HPTPC/ND280. | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | --Need to understand all the outputs of MaCh3 | |||||||
01.02.17 |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | 15.02.17At collaboration meeting, I attended talks on the ECAL, NIWG, cross-section, BANFF, OA, ND upgrade, and plenary sessions on all aspects of the experiment. Haven't got to the bottom of why the likelihoods for the fitting of the two fake data sets (HPTPC and ND280) are the same. But there's still a few things I need to check. Once I'm sure the fittings have worked correctly, will look at how best to vary cross-section model and compare HPTPC/ND280. | |||||||
01.02.17Have now got new psyche code working. Added a string as argument of addSelection function, which says which selection is using the sample. |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
01.02.17 | ||||||||
Line: 16 to 16 | ||||||||
New data matches that produced before changing the code, as expected. The same is true for the ND280 fake data. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Now doing asimov fit of this data with MaCh3, and will compare fits for ND280 and HPTPC. Will then vary underlying cross-section model and fit the fake data, to see if HPTPC is able to tell us more about where the models go wrong than ND280. | |||||||
> > | Then fitted this data with MaCh3, and will compare fits for ND280 and HPTPC.
![]() ![]() | |||||||
Need to look at how best to rebin the data so not all in same few bins. | ||||||||
Line: 180 to 188 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
01.02.17 | ||||||||
Line: 179 to 179 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | 01.02.17Have now got new psyche code working. Added a string as argument of addSelection function, which says which selection is using the sample. Using this, I recreated Fake Data for HPTPC and ND280 to check it's still the same as before changing the code.![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |||||||
10.01.17Still haven't fitted ND280 and HPTPC fake data with MaCh3. | ||||||||
Line: 154 to 176 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10.01.17Still haven't fitted ND280 and HPTPC fake data with MaCh3. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Having trouble with new Psyche code. | |||||||
> > | Having trouble with new Psyche code: | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | MaCh3 doesn't use internal psyche parameters file, but relies on 1-1 correspondence between selection and a sample. | |||||||
> > | -MaCh3 doesn't use internal psyche parameters file, but relies on 1-1 correspondence between selection and a sample. | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | With new psyche, multiple selections use the same sample. | |||||||
> > | -With new psyche, multiple selections use the same sample. | |||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Currently mapping selections to samples, to be able to add sample parameter to addselection class. | |||||||
> > | Currently mapping selections to samples, to be able to add sample parameter to addSelection function. Will then run ND280 and HPTPC fake data through MaCh3. | |||||||
14.12.16 |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | 21.12.16 | |||||||
> > | 10.01.17 | |||||||
Still haven't fitted ND280 and HPTPC fake data with MaCh3. | ||||||||
Line: 10 to 10 | ||||||||
With new psyche, multiple selections use the same sample. | ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | In conversation with Mark Scott about how best to proceed. | |||||||
> > | Currently mapping selections to samples, to be able to add sample parameter to addselection class. | |||||||
14.12.16 |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | 21.12.16Still haven't fitted ND280 and HPTPC fake data with MaCh3. Having trouble with new Psyche code. MaCh3 doesn't use internal psyche parameters file, but relies on 1-1 correspondence between selection and a sample. With new psyche, multiple selections use the same sample. In conversation with Mark Scott about how best to proceed. | |||||||
14.12.16Mark Scott sent over updated psyche code with truth based selection class, along with an example truth spline file. |
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||
> > | 14.12.16Mark Scott sent over updated psyche code with truth based selection class, along with an example truth spline file. Went to Imperial on Friday to see Patrick. He helped me get the new psyche code running, and I got the full spline files. Created fake data for both the ND280 and HPTPC:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||
30.11.16Playing with MaCh3, looking at the root TTree created from T2K data. | |||||||||||||||||||||
Line: 100 to 130 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||||||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
30.11.16 | |||||||||||
Line: 6 to 6 | |||||||||||
Cross section and flux covariance behave as expected for MCMC: | |||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||
< < | Burn in phase of same length as for log likelihood. | ||||||||||
> > | ![]() | ||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||
< < | Similar to energy bins last week, can show correlation for cross section bins: | ||||||||||
> > | ![]() | ||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||
< < | As bin numbers get further apart, bins become less correlated. | ||||||||||
> > | Burn in phase of same length ~10000 iterations.
Similar to energy bins last week, can look at correlation for cross section bins:
![]() ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||
Still need to investigate other branches in tree. | |||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||
< < | -Currently reading T2K technical notes: BANFF fits | ||||||||||
> > | Currently reading T2K technical notes: - BANFF fits
- MaCh3 | ||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||
< < | -Had meeting with Mark Scott: Going to go to Imperial to talk through code with Patrick Run Near Detector fit | ||||||||||
> > | Had meeting with Mark Scott:
- Going to go to Imperial to talk through code with Patrick - Run Near Detector fit | ||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||
< < | -Get MaCh3 to run truth selection for variations with underlying cross-section models If goes well in ND fits, push to oscillation fits | ||||||||||
> > | Get MaCh3 to run truth selection for variations with underlying cross-section models - If goes well in ND fits, push to oscillation fits | ||||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||||
< < | -Test fit done by Christmas | ||||||||||
> > | Aim to have test fit done by Christmas | ||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||
> > | |||||||||||
23.11.16 | |||||||||||
Line: 81 to 95 | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Added: | |||||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > | 30.11.16Playing with MaCh3, looking at the root TTree created from T2K data. Cross section and flux covariance behave as expected for MCMC: Burn in phase of same length as for log likelihood. Similar to energy bins last week, can show correlation for cross section bins: As bin numbers get further apart, bins become less correlated. Still need to investigate other branches in tree.-Currently reading T2K technical notes: BANFF fits
-Had meeting with Mark Scott: Going to go to Imperial to talk through code with Patrick Run Near Detector fit
-Get MaCh3 to run truth selection for variations with underlying cross-section models If goes well in ND fits, push to oscillation fits
-Test fit done by Christmas
| |||||||
23.11.16Solved issue running MaCh3. Installing/setting up environment for splines was main issue. |
Line: 1 to 1 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
23.11.16 | |||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||
< < | Solved issue running MaCh3. Installing/accessing splines was main issue. | ||||||||
> > | Solved issue running MaCh3. Installing/setting up environment for splines was main issue. | ||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||
< < | Have now run Near Detector data through MaCh3. The following plot shows the convergence Log Likelihood during the Markov process. | ||||||||
> > | Have now run Near Detector data through MaCh3. The following plot shows the convergence of the Log Likelihood during the Markov process: | ||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||
< < | The first ~10,000 entries are the burn-in phase. These are rejected, to reduce the effect of the initial choice parameter values. | ||||||||
> > | ![]() | ||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||
< < | The following plots are a sanity check, making sure I understand what's going on. The first plot shows the energy of the highest filled bin against the energy of the second highest for each simulation. These are highly correlated, as expected. | ||||||||
> > | The first ~10,000 entries are the burn-in phase. These are discarded, to reduce the effect of the initial choice parameter values. But appears to be behaving as expected. | ||||||||
Changed: | |||||||||
< < | The next two plots show the energy of the highest filled bin against the 10th, and 100th highest. The correlation decreases. | ||||||||
> > | The following plots are a sanity check, making sure I understand what's going on, and getting used to the syntax of MaCh3 outputs. The first plot shows the energy of the highest filled bin against the energy of the second highest for each simulation. These are highly correlated, as expected:
![]() ![]() ![]() | ||||||||
Currently reading various T2K technical notes and getting to grips with MaCh3. | |||||||||
Line: 41 to 53 | |||||||||
- Used for MC fit fake data at Near Detector, reproducing Far Detector fake data. -- WilliamCharlesParker - 16 Nov 2016 | |||||||||
Added: | |||||||||
> > |
|
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | 16.11.16 | |||||||
> > | 23.11.16Solved issue running MaCh3. Installing/accessing splines was main issue. Have now run Near Detector data through MaCh3. The following plot shows the convergence Log Likelihood during the Markov process. The first ~10,000 entries are the burn-in phase. These are rejected, to reduce the effect of the initial choice parameter values. The following plots are a sanity check, making sure I understand what's going on. The first plot shows the energy of the highest filled bin against the energy of the second highest for each simulation. These are highly correlated, as expected. The next two plots show the energy of the highest filled bin against the 10th, and 100th highest. The correlation decreases. Currently reading various T2K technical notes and getting to grips with MaCh3.16.11.16 | |||||||
Went to Imperial a couple of weeks ago to see Patrick and Clarence and install MaCh3: |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
16.11.16 | ||||||||
Line: 22 to 22 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < | Will then look at getting BANF: | |||||||
> > | Will then look at getting BANFF: | |||||||
- Used for MC fit fake data at Near Detector, reproducing Far Detector fake data. |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
16.11.16Went to Imperial a couple of weeks ago to see Patrick and Clarence and install MaCh3: - Needed to get Root in my directory on scratch, as well as CMT - Had trouble accessing GSL libraries, as they're in a different place on Royal Holloway servers to Queen Mary, and changing file paths didn't work - Eventually just pointed to where Asher had reinstalled GSL - Also got various log ins for T2K intranet, T2KUK wiki account, Slack, EZuce, GitHub repositories etcNow have got iRods installed to obtain Global Analysis file: - Have obtained a sample ND280 fit to get used to the systems with - Currently have an issue running this data with MaCh3 Will then look at getting BANF: - Used for MC fit fake data at Near Detector, reproducing Far Detector fake data. -- WilliamCharlesParker - 16 Nov 2016 |