[Clas_cascades] Response from Phi-- committee

[Zhiwen Zhao]

hi, Kijun

It seems that g11 has corrections from CMU and Genova group and some of them are 
duplications. Do they reach same conclusion on numbers on those so that 
eventually they are actually same corrections?

I have the note from Genova group as you mentioned.
http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/g11/analysis_archive/analysis/genova/talks/mhits.pdf
http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/e1-6/parkkj/local_disk/g11trigger_note.pdf

Do you know the link to any note from CMU?

Zhiwen

Zhiwen


On 3/30/2010 4:25 PM, Kijun Park wrote:
> Kijun Park wrote:
>> Hovanes Egiyan wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Yesterday I received the response from the review committee to our
>>> analysis note on Phi-- and
>>> the  normalization study document. I posted on the wiki on Phi-- review
>>> page :
>>>
>>> http://clasweb.jlab.org/rungroups/eg3/wiki/index.php/Analysis_review_by_Hadron_Spectroscopy_Working_Group.#Second_Round
>>>
>>> Or you can get it directly from :
>>> http://clasweb.jlab.org/rungroups/eg3/wiki/images/6/63/Resp-note-2.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> Hovanes.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Clas_cascades mailing list
>>> Clas_cascades at jlab.org
>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas_cascades
>>>
>>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> For the g11 analysis in normalization note, I applied all corrections
>> except "2ns tagger cut correction".
>> I asked to Valery and he said Raffaela studied this (actually it is a
>> single number for 4GeV data set), I have to study this with 5GeV data
>> set by myself and will check this with Raffaela's number.
>>
>> Sincerely yours,
>> Kijun
>>
>>
> Hi  all,
> I have studied for g11 corrections (the 2nd and 4th) that committee
> mentioned. I have checked out these corrections for Delta++ channel.
> Based on their point of view,  I summarized  what I implemented in the
> g11-delta++ analysis.
> (1) Rate dependent for 3 prongs events = 19% (I applied this using by
> CMU group method)
> (2) 2ns tagger cut correction = 6% (no applied)
> (3) Trigger inefficiency = 15% (I applied this using by CMU group method)
> (4) Multiple hit in the tagger within 2ns tagger cut = 18% (no applied)
>
> So, we need to apply two more corrections eventually later. Before
> applying these, I have studied these corrections are consistent with the
> ones from omega-analysis.
> For this, I scratched  the method from :
> http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/g11/analysis_archive/analysis/genova/talks/mhits.pdf
>
> Here, you see what I have.
> http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/e1-6/parkkj/g11_analysis/report/03252010.html
>
> Basic conclusion:
> (1) Two correction factors are consistent with omega-analysis group applied.
> (2) Basically two corrections do not depend on photon energy and reaction.
>
> Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meeting tomorrow due to
> Dr. appointment. Please let me know your comments after meeting.
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Sincerely yours,
> Kijun
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>