[Clas12_rgb] first draft of replies to pass2 review

[Daniel Carman]

Silvia,

I looked over your draft of the reply slides. A few comments that I noted I pass along:

1) Charge #1: I do not believe that the LTCC calibration was deemed acceptable at the pass-2 review and
work was done to update the calibration and timelines. This is in addition to CTOF.

2) Charge #3: At the efficiency task force meeting today, we discussed on the ongoing validation of the
hardware knockout tables across the different subsystems. This work is mostly done with some last items
lingering into next week. Florian can provide links to the validation studies.

3) Charge #4:
 - The vz cut on the CVT dip angle of 1 cm is not yet finalized (at least within RG-A and RG-K) as studies
    of reactions with a detached vertex are probing the losses with a 1 cm cut vs. a 10 cm cut. This work
    will conclude (I am doing the studies for K+Lambda) in the first part of next week.
 - Note that for the events with pT < 180 MeV, the issue is not with a bad chi2pid, the issue is that there
    is no CTOF hit and this is required by the Event Builder for a PID assignment.

4) Charge #6:
 - I think there are two parts of the discussion here comparing pass-1 to pass-2 software. One is acceptance,
   but the more important one is efficiency. I think plots from both data and Monte Carlo would be appropriate
   (at least on a wikipage) with a summary in your reply to the committee. I think it appropriate to have comparisons
   for both the Forward Detector and the Central Detector.

Regards,
Daniel

On Dec 16, 2022, at 12:40 PM, Silvia Niccolai via Clas12_rgb <clas12_rgb at jlab.org<mailto:clas12_rgb at jlab.org>> wrote:

Dear all,
I have prepared a rough draft of replies to the recommendations of the
pass2 review. I will include this in the review wiki page along with links
to all the relevant documentation (timelines, presentations of
cross-checks, etc).
Please let me know if you have comments/corrections/suggestions.
In particular, I'd love some help to reply to the last question, where I
wrote "NOT SURE OF WHAT ELSE TO SAY ON THIS POINT". I am not sure if they
expect a new kind of QA timeline relying only on CD quantities, or if they
want us to define what are the key plots to evaluate the choice of
reconstruction (maybe Yuri's validation figures for the MC+background,
then?). Some help on this point is highly appreciated.
Thanks a lot and best regards,
Silvia
<reply_pass2_review.pdf>_______________________________________________
Clas12_rgb mailing list
Clas12_rgb at jlab.org<mailto:Clas12_rgb at jlab.org>
https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgb

***************************************************************************
*
* Dr. Daniel S. Carman                  e-mail : carman at jlab.org<mailto:carman at jlab.org>
* Staff Scientist                          office : (757)-269-5586
* Jefferson Laboratory                web: http://userweb.jlab.org/~carman
*
***************************************************************************





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clas12_rgb/attachments/20221216/95166857/attachment.html>