[Clas12_rgb] feedback needed on RGB Jeopardy PAC slides
silvia at jlab.org
silvia at jlab.org
Wed Jul 3 15:32:48 EDT 2024
Hi Stepan,
OK, what about this new version (attached)? In yellow are the modified
sentences. I removed the lumi upgrade and specified explicitly that we ran
at a lower lumi than the proposals (I was going to say orally it but I
agree that it is better to write it).
Thank you very much!
Best regards,
Silvia
> 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, ââ¬ÅDVCS et al.ââ¬Â, I am not sure what this means, I
>> think it
>> should be just ââ¬ÅDVCSââ¬Â
>> - slide 3, better to have some explanations for ââ¬Åinbendingââ¬Â
>> and
>> ââ¬Åoutbendingââ¬Â. For example, you could continue the
>> ââ¬Åtitleââ¬Â of
>> bullets as ââ¬Å ââ¬Â¦ 3 different beam energies, and two
>> orientations of the
>> CLAS12 torus magnetic field, inbending and outbending
>> electrons)ââ¬Â.
>> - slide 4, is it right to quote the luminosity ââ¬Åper
>> nucleonââ¬Â? 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, Richardââ¬â¢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, ââ¬ÅDVCS et al.ââ¬Â, I am not sure what this means, I
>> think it
>> should be just ââ¬ÅDVCSââ¬Â
>> - slide 3, better to have some explanations for ââ¬Åinbendingââ¬Â
>> and
>> ââ¬Åoutbendingââ¬Â. For example, you could continue the
>> ââ¬Åtitleââ¬Â of
>> bullets as ââ¬Å ââ¬Â¦ 3 different beam energies, and two
>> orientations of the
>> CLAS12 torus magnetic field, inbending and outbending
>> electrons)ââ¬Â.
>> - slide 4, is it right to quote the luminosity ââ¬Åper
>> nucleonââ¬Â? 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, Richardââ¬â¢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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: slide4_new.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 221517 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clas12_rgb/attachments/20240703/5f887123/attachment-0001.jpe>
More information about the Clas12_rgb
mailing list