[Clas12_rgb] feedback needed on RGB Jeopardy PAC slides
Stepan Stepanyan
stepanya at jlab.org
Wed Jul 3 15:34:15 EDT 2024
Hi Silvia,
I agree with these changes.
Thanks,
Stepan
On Jul 3, 2024, at 3:32 PM, silvia at jlab.org<mailto:silvia at jlab.org> wrote:
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><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><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><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><mailto:stepanya at jlab.org>>
Cc: clas12_rgb at jlab.org<mailto:clas12_rgb at jlab.org><mailto:clas12_rgb at jlab.org>
<clas12_rgb at jlab.org<mailto: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,¬Å"DVCS et al.ââ,¬Â, I am not sure what this means, I
think it
should be just ââ,¬Å"DVCSââ,¬Â
- slide 3, better to have some explanations for ââ,¬Å"inbendingââ,¬Â
and
ââ,¬Å"outbendingââ,¬Â. For example, you could continue the
ââ,¬Å"titleââ,¬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,¬Å"per
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><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><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><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><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><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><mailto:stepanya at jlab.org>>
Cc: clas12_rgb at jlab.org<mailto:clas12_rgb at jlab.org><mailto:clas12_rgb at jlab.org>
<clas12_rgb at jlab.org<mailto: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,¬Å"DVCS et al.ââ,¬Â, I am not sure what this means, I
think it
should be just ââ,¬Å"DVCSââ,¬Â
- slide 3, better to have some explanations for ââ,¬Å"inbendingââ,¬Â
and
ââ,¬Å"outbendingââ,¬Â. For example, you could continue the
ââ,¬Å"titleââ,¬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,¬Å"per
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><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><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><mailto:Clas12_rgb at jlab.org>
https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgb
<slide4_new.JPG>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clas12_rgb/attachments/20240703/8c55590a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Clas12_rgb
mailing list