[Clas12_rgb] feedback needed on RGB Jeopardy PAC slides

silvia at jlab.org silvia at jlab.org
Wed Jul 3 09:51:20 EDT 2024


Hi Stepan,
thanks a lot for your very useful comments, which I will include in the
slides.
Just one comment about your point on slide 21. I had a sentence along
these lines as my concluding statement in the version of the talk that I
presented at the CLAS meeting last week (you can see it on the meeting
indico page), but it received a lot of negative feedback, in particular
from Patrizia and Patrick. They worry that pointing out that the
luminosity and  reconstruction efficiency will be higher will weaken the
case for requesting beam time. I meant it in the sense that the impact on
statistics-starving measurements (such as nDVCS) will be even stronger
than the factor ~sqrt(2) in the error bars because we will be able to run
in more favorable conditions, and that back in 2019 we didn't manage to
run in the conditions of the proposal.
So, I am not sure on what's the best way to proceed regarding this point...
Best regards,
Silvia

> Hi Silvia,
>
> Here are some comments:
> - slide 2, “DVCS et al.”, I am not sure what this means, I think it
> should be just “DVCS”
> - slide 3, better to have some explanations for “inbending” and
> “outbending”. For example, you could continue the “title” of
> bullets as “ … 3 different beam energies, and two orientations of the
> CLAS12 torus magnetic field, inbending and outbending electrons)”.
> - slide 4, is it right to quote the luminosity “per nucleon”? all our
> measurements are related to either proton, neutron or deuteron. So the
> luminosity on these targets is half of the quoted number.
> - slide 4, Richard’s J/psi results are from Pass2
> - slide 5, the comment about the complementarity of nDVCS and transverse
> pDVCS - I am not sure this is correct. In each case, you  mesure different
> quark combinations, and if you want to do flavor separation, you need both
> measurements nDVCS and transverslly polarised pDVCS.
> - slide 5, I am not sure I understand why you are showing Hall-A data
> - slide 7, can we write the fit function to the asymmetries, the blue
> line?
> - slide 9, the same as above, the fit function. Valeri already commented,
> I agree that the table is not useful
> - slide 10, there is space to write some explanations for the plots, for
> example, what are red bands?
> - slide 12, a first bullet should explain that neutrons are detected and
> identified in the CLAS12 forwad calorimeters
> - slide 21, should we say that with improved software will allow us to run
> at somewhat hiher luminosity?
>
> Regards,
> Stepan
>
>
>> On Jul 1, 2024, at 12:59 PM, Silvia Niccolai via Clas12_rgb
>> <clas12_rgb at jlab.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>> following the comments I received for my dry run last Thursday, I made
>> a
>> new version of the Jeopardy slides, that you can find at the following
>> link:
>> https://box.in2p3.fr/s/BjMRQGqfBEgXJ2Z
>> Could you please send me your comments and suggestions, ideally by
>> Thursday?
>>
>> And I have a question for Jerry for the GMn slides: the projections
>> that
>> you sent me, and that use the full RGB expected statistics, stop at Q2
>> =
>> 10 GeV2, while the preliminary results for the ratio, even broken into
>> the
>> three beam energies, reach Q2~12 GeV2. This goes a bit in contradiction
>> with our statement "Completing RGB will extend the reach in Q 2 and
>> improve statistical precision". How can we fix this? One of the main
>> comments I got last week was to emphasize the need for statistics.
>> Could
>> you maybe extend your projections to 12 GeV2?
>>
>> Thanks a lot to all and best regards,
>> Silvia
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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