[Clas12_rgb] feedback needed on RGB Jeopardy PAC slides

Stepan Stepanyan stepanya at jlab.org
Wed Jul 3 13:46:30 EDT 2024


Hi Silvia,

What I commented on slide 21 and the related comment on slide 4 regarding luminosity are in line with what Patrick said in the last sentence of the first paragraph of his email. All our proposals assumed 10^35 luminosity on a single particle, a proton, neutron, or deuteron. So, we ran with 65% of that luminosity in the past, and improved tracking helps to gain the loss in future running.

Your new slide does not reflect what is discussed. I do not think you should mention the luminosity upgrade at all. It is still in the state that we do not know the outcome. Instead, with the tracking upgrades, we can already run at a higher luminosity than the nominal.

Regards,
Stepan

On Jul 3, 2024, at 12:51 PM, Patrick Achenbach <patricka at jlab.org<mailto:patricka at jlab.org>> wrote:

Good morning Silvia and all,

I think it depends very much on how this is presented. Your concluding statement from last week's presentation was "the improved CLAS12 tracking and reconstruction, along with the high-luminosity upgrade of CLAS12 will further increase statistical precision for all our measurements". This was perceived by me (and possibly also by Patrizia) that we are requesting the remaining 51 PAC days to get more physics out than originally proposed (maybe it was meant differently). If we emphasize that for the remainder of the RG-B run the luminosity will be higher than the design luminosity, we are giving an argument to PAC reviewers to cut the beam-time. On the other hand, if we emphasize that past data-sets were taken with lower luminosity than proposed, and that future measurements will make up for this loss through an improved efficiency, we are giving an argument to PAC reviewers that the physics program can indeed be completed within a total of 90 PAC days.

My recommendation is to emphasize on page 4 the lower luminosity of past runs and present on the same page a remedy for future runs. Then, keep the conclusion statement focused on finishing the proposed physics program without discussing the high-luminosity upgrade.

Best,
Patrick


________________________________
From: Clas12_rgb <clas12_rgb-bounces at jlab.org<mailto:clas12_rgb-bounces at jlab.org>> on behalf of Silvia Niccolai via Clas12_rgb <clas12_rgb at jlab.org<mailto:clas12_rgb at jlab.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 09:51
To: Stepan Stepanyan <stepanya at jlab.org<mailto:stepanya at jlab.org>>
Cc: clas12_rgb at jlab.org<mailto:clas12_rgb at jlab.org> <clas12_rgb at jlab.org<mailto:clas12_rgb at jlab.org>>
Subject: Re: [Clas12_rgb] feedback needed on RGB Jeopardy PAC slides

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<mailto: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<mailto:Clas12_rgb at jlab.org>
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgb
>
>


_______________________________________________
Clas12_rgb mailing list
Clas12_rgb at jlab.org<mailto:Clas12_rgb at jlab.org>
https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgb

________________________________
From: Clas12_rgb <clas12_rgb-bounces at jlab.org<mailto:clas12_rgb-bounces at jlab.org>> on behalf of Silvia Niccolai via Clas12_rgb <clas12_rgb at jlab.org<mailto:clas12_rgb at jlab.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 09:51
To: Stepan Stepanyan <stepanya at jlab.org<mailto:stepanya at jlab.org>>
Cc: clas12_rgb at jlab.org<mailto:clas12_rgb at jlab.org> <clas12_rgb at jlab.org<mailto:clas12_rgb at jlab.org>>
Subject: Re: [Clas12_rgb] feedback needed on RGB Jeopardy PAC slides

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<mailto: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<mailto:Clas12_rgb at jlab.org>
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgb
>
>


_______________________________________________
Clas12_rgb mailing list
Clas12_rgb at jlab.org<mailto: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/20240703/0eb18f8b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Clas12_rgb mailing list