[Clas12_rgb] trains redefinition - feedback needed

Stepan Stepanyan stepanya at jlab.org
Fri Nov 13 11:09:47 EST 2020


Dear Silvia,

I am not the one who requested the inclusive skim, but if my skim will be 60% of the DSTs I rather run my analysis off DSTs. So, decision to drop the inclusive skim seems is the right one.

My two cents.

Regards, Stepan

> On Nov 13, 2020, at 8:02 AM, silvia at jlab.org wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> one of the two recommendation of the RG-B Fall review is to reduce
> considerably the size of our trains. Due to the much higher rates at low
> Q2 of the outbending Fall data, compared to the Spring ones, our inclusive
> train is too big. Our trains are in total 60% of the size of the cooked
> run, and the inclusive train makes up for 75% of this. The committee
> recommends to scale down the skims size to no more than 20% of the cooked
> files.
> We are therefore planning to remove this train. If people really need
> this, please let us know, and we can discuss and find out if it is
> possible to find some additional cuts to include in order to make it
> bearable.
> We are also planning to add a Q2>1 cut to the DVCS train to reduce its size.
> Please get in touch as soon as possible if you have objections or comments
> on this plan. I'd like to send a reply to the committee by this evening
> (EU time).
> Thanks a lot and best regards,
> Silvia
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Clas12_rgb mailing list
> Clas12_rgb at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgb




More information about the Clas12_rgb mailing list