[Clas12_rgb] [EXTERNAL] Re: Clas12_rgb Digest, Vol 25, Issue 5

Efrain Patrick Segarra segarrae at mit.edu
Fri Nov 13 12:08:46 EST 2020


Hi all,

For BAND analysis, I agree with Stepan that we can run our analysis off the DST rather than the inclusive train. 

Thanks,
-- 
Efrain Segarra

On 11/13/20, 12:00 PM, "Clas12_rgb on behalf of clas12_rgb-request at jlab.org" <clas12_rgb-bounces at jlab.org on behalf of clas12_rgb-request at jlab.org> wrote:

    Send Clas12_rgb mailing list submissions to
    	clas12_rgb at jlab.org

    To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    	https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgb
    or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    	clas12_rgb-request at jlab.org

    You can reach the person managing the list at
    	clas12_rgb-owner at jlab.org

    When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
    than "Re: Contents of Clas12_rgb digest..."


    Today's Topics:

       1. Re: trains redefinition - feedback needed (Silvia Niccolai)


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Message: 1
    Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 17:42:02 +0100
    From: Silvia Niccolai <silvia at jlab.org>
    To: Stepan Stepanyan <stepanya at jlab.org>
    Cc: clas12_rgb at jlab.org
    Subject: Re: [Clas12_rgb] trains redefinition - feedback needed
    Message-ID: <3B981FF9-ADA4-4632-B291-24EE306CC147 at jlab.org>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

    Hi Stepan, 
    Yes, we?ll go that way, and drop the inclusive train. We are studying how to modify the dvcs skim to also be compatible with the requirements of the Gmn analysis. 
    Best regards,
    Silvia

    Sent from my iPhone

    > On 13 Nov 2020, at 17:09, Stepan Stepanyan <stepanya at jlab.org> wrote:
    > 
    > ?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
    > 




    ------------------------------

    Subject: Digest Footer

    _______________________________________________
    Clas12_rgb mailing list
    Clas12_rgb at jlab.org
    https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgb


    ------------------------------

    End of Clas12_rgb Digest, Vol 25, Issue 5
    *****************************************




More information about the Clas12_rgb mailing list