[Clascomment] OPT-IN:Single and double spin asymmetries for deeply virtual Compton scattering measured with CLAS and a longitudinally polarized proton target

[Francois-Xavier Girod]

Just as an example, you could use :

N_{epgX} where "X" is unconstrained
N_{epgY} where "Y" corresponds to events passing exclusivity cuts
N_{epg} for the true number of single photon events 

Whichever choice you think is clearer, I simply would recommend to keep the last line N_{epg} for the true number of one photon events.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Silvia Niccolai" <silvia at jlab.org>
To: "Francois-Xavier Girod" <fxgirod at jlab.org>
Cc: clascomment at jlab.org, "burkert" <burkert at jlab.org>, "GUIDAL Michel" <guidal at ipno.in2p3.fr>, "Daria Sokhan" <daria at jlab.org>, "Angela Biselli" <biselli at jlab.org>, voutier at jlab.org, "Paul Stoler" <stolep at rpi.edu>, "Erin Seder" <eseder at jlab.org>, mirazita at lnf.infn.it
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 11:49:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Clascomment] OPT-IN:Single and double spin asymmetries for deeply virtual Compton scattering measured with CLAS and a longitudinally polarized proton target

I really think that it would create ambiguity, as we use epgX for the events before exclusivity cuts. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 14 Jan 2015, at 17:25, Francois-Xavier Girod <fxgirod at jlab.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> If you adopt this suggestion, the text should make it clear that "X" in this notation is either "nothing" or a photon from pi0 decay that goes undetected (outside the acceptance or below the minimum energy cut). The suggestion is really to use N_{epg} for the true number of single photon events, from BH+DVCS+interference. Maybe a better notation than N_{epgX} can be used for the unsubtracted number of events.
> 
> My two cents.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Silvia Niccolai" <silvia at jlab.org>
> To: "Francois-Xavier Girod" <fxgirod at jlab.org>
> Cc: clascomment at jlab.org, "burkert" <burkert at jlab.org>, "GUIDAL Michel" <guidal at ipno.in2p3.fr>, "Daria Sokhan" <daria at jlab.org>, "Angela Biselli" <biselli at jlab.org>, voutier at jlab.org, "Paul Stoler" <stolep at rpi.edu>, "Erin Seder" <eseder at jlab.org>, mirazita at lnf.infn.it
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 11:21:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [Clascomment] OPT-IN:Single and double spin asymmetries for deeply virtual Compton scattering measured with CLAS and a longitudinally polarized proton target
> 
> Hi FX,
> That could be another option. However, wouldn't that "X" give the impression that exclusivity cuts weren't yet applied at that stage (while actually they are)?
> Silvia
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 14 Jan 2015, at 17:18, Francois-Xavier Girod <fxgirod at jlab.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Silvia,
>> 
>> In the past, we used N_{epgX} for the unsubtracted number of "single" photon events (including pi0 contamination) and simply N_{epg} for the estimated true number of exclusive single photon events.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> FX
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "pisanos" <pisanos at jlab.org>
>> To: "burkert" <burkert at jlab.org>
>> Cc: "GUIDAL Michel" <guidal at ipno.in2p3.fr>, "Daria Sokhan" <daria at jlab.org>, "Angela Biselli" <biselli at jlab.org>, "Silvia Niccolai" <silvia at jlab.org>, voutier at jlab.org, clascomment at jlab.org, "Paul Stoler" <stolep at rpi.edu>, "Erin Seder" <eseder at jlab.org>, mirazita at lnf.infn.it
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 11:11:40 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Clascomment] OPT-IN:Single and double spin asymmetries for deeply virtual Compton scattering measured with CLAS and a longitudinally polarized proton target
>> 
>> Dear Volker, 
>> 
>> I see your point. What if we use N^{DVCS/BH} instead? 
>> 
>> silvia 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Clascomment mailing list
>> Clascomment at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clascomment