[Clas12_rgb] trains redefinition - feedback needed
Francois-Xavier Girod
fxgirod at jlab.org
Fri Nov 13 13:26:38 EST 2020
It looks to me like that ndvcs number is much too high. What is the final
fraction after the analysis is complete?
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 19:24 Zhiwen zhao <zwzhao at jlab.org> wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Just to clarify some numbers
>
> for fall2019 outbending run, the current skim size in percent are
>
> dst 100
> inc 39
> ndvcs 14
> edeut 8
> two 4
> jpsi 1
>
> Zhiwen
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Clas12_rgb <clas12_rgb-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Harut
> Avagyan <avakian at jlab.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, November 13, 2020 1:09 PM
> *To:* clas12_rgb at jlab.org <clas12_rgb at jlab.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Clas12_rgb] trains redefinition - feedback needed
>
> Hi Silvia,
>
> We had some exchanges with Zhiwen. According to him the inclusive skim
> size is 40% of dst for the outbending runs, not sure where that 60% came.
>
> In case we drop the inclusive skim, decision should be made not just on
> the basis of the space, but also the time of the analysis, which will be
> obviously significant.
>
> In addition, in case we drop the inclusive skim, which was so far used
> in SIDIS, we will need e'hX skims, which will be only about a factor of
> 1.5-2 smaller.
>
> Regards,
>
> Harut
>
> On 11/13/2020 11:42 AM, Silvia Niccolai wrote:
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Clas12_rgb mailing list
> > Clas12_rgb at jlab.org
> > https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgb
> _______________________________________________
> Clas12_rgb mailing list
> Clas12_rgb at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgb
> _______________________________________________
> Clas12_rgb mailing list
> Clas12_rgb at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clas12_rgb/attachments/20201113/bec5b292/attachment.html>
More information about the Clas12_rgb
mailing list