[Clas12_rgb] trains redefinition - feedback needed
silvia at jlab.org
silvia at jlab.org
Fri Nov 13 14:26:22 EST 2020
Hi FX,
There are a lot of "fake neutrals" in the data - see for instance the talk
of Cole of the other day - and the nDVCS filter asks for neutrals, so this
may be why it is so much bigger than in RGA.
In any case, the pass1 review committee asks that trains don't exceed 20%,
we made it for the spring data and we're going to do it for the Fall ones
as well. We're working with Raffaella to make new custom wagons leading to
trains with appropriate size.
I'll provide more infos on the outcome of this next Monday.
Have a good weekend, everyone!
Silvia
> 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, weâll 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
More information about the Clas12_rgb
mailing list