[Clas_cascades] Response from Phi-- committee

[Kijun Park]

Zhiwen Zhao wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> Clas_cascades mailing list
> Clas_cascades at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas_cascades
>   
Well,  the CMU group notes are well known as M. Williams' analysis.
I am note sure whether their (CMU & GENOVA) all corrections have same 
conclusion. At least, what I applied are same. But I am focusing on what 
committee pointed out.
Kijun


-- 
---------------------------------------******
Kijun Park
Jefferson Lab.
Suit 5 Room 12_1/B107
12000 Jefferson Av.
Newport News VA 23606
Phone 757-269-6989