[Clas12_rgb] trains redefinition - feedback needed

Francois-Xavier Girod fxgirod at jlab.org
Fri Nov 13 14:05:48 EST 2020


I don't have the precise number but I the DVCS wagon output on proton
target was 0.1%

At 13% it certain there is a problem, I believe

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 20:00 <silvia at jlab.org> wrote:

> Hello all,
> I'll clarify a few more things to reply to various comments raised in thsi
> thread:
> - I never said inclusive is 60% of the total. I said (you can check my
> slides at the review) that TRAINS are 60% of the cooked file, and
> inclusive is 75% of the trains. This is the info Zhiwen passed me before
> the review. The trains were 20% of the cooked data in the spring.
> - the train we call "ndvcs" also includes pdvcs
> - we are planning to put a Q2 cut, as I said previously, to reduce the
> dvcs train size.
>
> FX, we haven't analyzed yet any of these outbending data (as no cooking
> besides calibration one was done), so I don't have a reply to your last
> question yet.
>
> Best regards,
> Silvia
>
>
> > 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
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20201113/47d01d65/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Clas12_rgb mailing list