[clas12_rgk] Selected RGK runs for calibration

[burkert]

Annalisa,
You mean 10 files are not enough (not 10 runs)?
Volker

On 5/24/19 1:23 PM, Annalisa D'Angelo wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I propose to wait beginning of next week, until Raffaella provides us 
> with information about the resolution improvements for the RGA file.
>
> I understand it will be necessary to cook a full run to proceed with a 
> new TOF calibration: 10 runs seem not enough for a quantitative 
> comparison of the final TOF resolution for RGK.
>
> All the best
>
> Annalisa
>
> Il 24/05/19 19:14, Raffaella De Vita ha scritto:
>> Dear All,
>> Validation of 6b.2.0 has been completed but, as Nick said, we are 
>> doing more in depth analysis to quantify the expected improvement in 
>> resolution between 6b.2.0 and 6b.1.1. Nick has already launched jobs 
>> and I’ll look at them as soon as the files are available. Unless 
>> there are problems with farm or disks, I should have the results by 
>> Monday.
>> Best regards,
>>     Raffaella
>>
>>> On 24 May 2019, at 18:30, Latifa Elouadrhiri <latifa at jlab.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Annalise
>>>
>>> In this case I propose to cook les say 10 Files with each release 
>>> that we contribute to the validation first then decide on which 
>>> release to use what do you think?
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Latifa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On May 24, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Annalisa D'Angelo 
>>>> <annalisa.dangelo at roma2.infn.it> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> I understand that 6b.2.0 includes an improved path length 
>>>> determination that will sensibly improve the TOF resolution with 
>>>> respect to the 6b.1.1 version.
>>>> While for high energy particles, the difference in beta 
>>>> determination may not be critical, it would sensibly improve the 
>>>> particle id for low momentum kaons, for example.
>>>> If we are talking about few days of delay in the RGK runs cooking 
>>>> and calibration versus a sensibly improved quality, it may be worth 
>>>> waiting.
>>>> All the best
>>>> Annalisa
>>>>
>>>> Il 24/05/19 18:16, Latifa Elouadrhiri ha scritto:
>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>
>>>>> 6b.2.0 is not validated yet! Why do we want to use it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Latifa
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 24, 2019, at 11:24 AM, Annalisa D'Angelo 
>>>>>> <annalisa.dangelo at roma2.infn.it> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Nick, Brandon and Latifa,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> after today's RGK meeting it has been pointed out that the TOF 
>>>>>> calibration for low energy particles should be done using at 
>>>>>> least the 6b.2.0 release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which decoding version is being used? If we are using the 6b.1.1 
>>>>>> release, the TOF calibration is not expected to improve much with 
>>>>>> respect to the present one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this case it would be more efficient to wait another week 
>>>>>> before the complete run cooking...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry for the late input...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Annalisa
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Il 22/05/19 16:34, markov ha scritto:
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>> I have started decoding.
>>>>>>> Nick.
>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2019, at 9:25 AM, Latifa Elouadrhiri 
>>>>>>>> <latifa at jlab.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Correct
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2019, at 9:07 AM, markov <markov at jlab.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>> I will start decoding soon.
>>>>>>>>> As far as I understand, you want hipo4 for 
>>>>>>>>> decoding/reconstruction, is it correct?
>>>>>>>>> Thank you, Nick.
>>>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2019, at 8:15 AM, Latifa Elouadrhiri 
>>>>>>>>>> <latifa at jlab.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dear Nick and Brandon,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This cooking has the priority after RGA run 5038 and 5036 
>>>>>>>>>> data processing for different calibrations and has the 
>>>>>>>>>> highest priority over any other cooking.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Latifa
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/19 8:12 AM, Annalisa D'Angelo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Brandon and Nick,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> following a telephone meeting with Latifa, it has been 
>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned the necessity to identify reference runs to be 
>>>>>>>>>>> cooked with the latest release for calibration purposes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest to use the files:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 5700     @ 7.5 GeV
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 5893     @ 6.5 GeV
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The first has been used in the past for the same purpose and 
>>>>>>>>>>> it would be nice to use it for comparison.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The latter is a standard good file at 6.5 GeV.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All the best
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Annalisa
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> ================================================
>>>>>> Prof. Annalisa D'Angelo
>>>>>> Dip. Fisica, Universita' di Roma "Tor Vergata"
>>>>>> INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata, Rome Italy
>>>>>> email:annalisa.dangelo at roma2.infn.it
>>>>>> Jefferson Laboratory, Newport News, VA USA
>>>>>> Email: annalisa at jlab.org
>>>>>> Tel: + 39 06 72594562
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> ================================================
>>>> Prof. Annalisa D'Angelo
>>>> Dip. Fisica, Universita' di Roma "Tor Vergata"
>>>> INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata, Rome Italy
>>>> email:annalisa.dangelo at roma2.infn.it
>>>> Jefferson Laboratory, Newport News, VA USA
>>>> Email: annalisa at jlab.org
>>>> Tel: + 39 06 72594562
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> clas12_rgk mailing list
>>> clas12_rgk at jlab.org
>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_rgk
>>>
>>
>>