[Clas_cascades] Minutes Thu Jul 29 posted (fwd from Kijun)

Wed Aug 4 10:54:53 EDT 2010

Hi Kijun,

thanks for reading the analysis note and giving me your  comments. I 
implemented them in the text
and submitted it into CVS.  I still need to implement other 
modifications before posting on the wiki.
See my  answers to  your question after your original message.

Cheers,
            Hovanes.

Elton Smith wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:02:51 -0400
> From: Kijun Park <parkkj at jlab.org>
> To: Elton Smith <elton at jlab.org>
> Cc: clas_cascades-bounces at jlab.org, parkkj at jlab.org
> Subject: Re: [Clas_cascades] Minutes Thu Jul 29 posted
>
> Elton Smith wrote:
>   
>> Present: Elton, Stepan, Hovanes, Kijun
>> On the phone: Lewis, Zhiwen <br>
>> Notes by Elton.
>>
>> == Announcements==
>>
>> == Normalization ==
>> # No changes, latest version posted on wiki
>> # All tex and figures will be added to the cvs repository for save
>> keeping.
>>
>> == Comments on PHi-- Note ==
>> # Correction for decays outside of target estimated to be 15+/-5%.
>> # This correction has been included into the upper limits
>> # All documentation has been updated to reflect latest results
>> # Upper limit has increased to 700 pb, with the addition of the 15% loss
>> for decays with 5% uncertainty, as well as updated number number of
>> 10->15% uncertainty in normalization.
>> # Figure 20? in normalization note has been included into the response to
>> the committee. Lewis will send Hovanes the .eps file for best
>>
>> == Draft of Phi-- Paper ==
>> # Hovanes will start a draft of the paper.
>> # The draft will be provided to committee as soon as appropriate, but
>> response will not be delayed.
>> # We discussed how to include comparison of g11/eg3 Delta production.
>> Elton suggests to mention comparison in text but no figure so that CLAS
>> may allow publication to proceed without formal review of that data. In
>> any case the final results depend on it only indirectly as input to the
>> systematic error on the normalization.
>>
>> == Theses ==
>> # Zhiwen and Haiyun should provide final pdf versions of their theses to
>> Reinhard for posting on CLAS thesis page.
>>
>>
>> == Next Meeting Aug 5, 9:00 am ==
>> # Everyone read and comment on Phi-- analysis note and response to
>> committee. Any suggestions should be incorporated before next week.
>>
>>
>> Elton Smith
>> Jefferson Lab MS 12H5
>> 12000 Jefferson Ave
>> Suite # 16
>> Newport News, VA 23606
>> elton at jlab.org
>> (757) 269-7625
>> (757) 269-6331 fax
>> _______________________________________________
>> Clas_cascades mailing list
>> Clas_cascades at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas_cascades
>>
>>     

> Hi, All.
> Here is my minor comments on Phi--(1862) analysis note.
> Some of these may be due to my mis-understanding. (my apology)
>
> Sincerely yours,
> Kijun
>
> Date : July 29, 2010 version
>
> (1) page 10: Just better understanding for me, what is the reason of
> proton momentum cut P_p=0.150GeV ?
>      From Fig.4(left), there is no event below 200MeV !
>   
The momentum cuts are there to prevent  protons with unreasonably low 
momenta getting
in the data sample. Protons with momenta less than 200 MeV are very 
likely going to distort
the kinematics of the events.
> (2) page 10: Mass rage of Lambda: 1.1108GeV<M <1.1202GeV3 => I confused
> the unit when I looked first time. 3 is footnote number.
>   
Yes, it is very confusing. I changed the footnote location avoid the 
confusion.
> (3) page10:  there is no M_I in Eq(2)
>   
I changed it to M_{p \pi^{-}} to match Eq. 2
> (4) page13: middle-top:  $\gamma D \to pp\pi^-$  should be $\gamma d \to
> pp\pi^-$
>   
Done
> (5) page15: I believed the notation between ctau(fig) and ctau tilda(new
> notation) is same ?
>   
Yes, but the tilde is missing in the axis titles. But it is in the 
caption of the figure.
> (6) page15: Eq(5), no explain about $\Delta\vec{V_\Lambda}$ and
> $\vec{P_{\Lambda} $
>   
I added explanations for the synbols in Eq 5
> (7) page22: top paragraph: "number of reconstructed simulated ..." =>
> "number of reconstructed events in a invariant mass bin to the total
> number of generated event for the same bin"
>   
I think leaving "simulated" makes it more clear  that we  are talking 
about the simulated
events.
> (8) page22: Since we didn't apply the bin migration correction, I am not
> sure whether we have to explain what the bin migration is with Eq(7) and
>   
Bin migration is one of the reasons we use full GEANT based simulations 
instead of parameterization.
I left it there since I thought it is useful to  explain what we mean by 
acceptance corrections.
> (8).
>   

> (9) page23: last paragraph: "The first raw are..." => "The first row is..."
>   
Corrected.
> (10) Fig13,14:  Are they all sectors ? or single sector ?
>   
Figure 13 contains all 6 sectors. Fig. 14 shows  the phi -dependence.
> (11)page34: "The last run of 2004 was run 45529 ..." => "The first run
> of 2004 was run45529 ..." ?
>       I am confused a little bit run information that you provide here,
> I don't see 45527 run shows a drop.
>   
There were wrong numbers of the runs. 45527 should have been 45627, and 
45529 should
have been 45629. I corrected it. I also put Fig. 21 sideways so that it 
is more readable. 
> (12) page35: I am not sure that your statement is suitable "... the
> photon energy range above 4.5GeV, the absolute normalizations are
> consistent even for the photon energies below the trigger energy range."
>   
There I just want to point out that there is a consistent match between 
eg3 and g11, not an accidental
one just in the range with a presence of statistical fluctuations.
> (13) page40: section 13.1 middle para: $\Xi^-(3121)$ should be $\Xi^-(1321)$
>   
Fixed
> (14) Fig27, page44: Just curious: For the fitting method, the mass
> width(red dots) seems to be 25MeV because 4data points in 1GeV mass
> window but you said it is based on 20MeV binning.
>   
You are correct, the bin size was 25MeV, not 20 MeV. Corrected the 
caption and the text for the
analysis note and the response to the comittee.
> (15) page52: "..upper limit of less then 3nb ..." to be "...upper limit
> of less than 3nb ..."
>
>   
Fixed.
>
>
>
>
>
>   