From gayoso at jlab.org  Tue Nov  4 17:40:44 2025
From: gayoso at jlab.org (Carlos Ayerbe Gayoso)
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2025 22:40:44 +0000
Subject: [Color_transp] Fw: [EXTERNAL] Re:  Alternative Mailling List
In-Reply-To: <MW4PR09MB9664EAFF5CB2D6BBFC0B755DA7F3A@MW4PR09MB9664.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
References: <MW4PR09MB96649C3ABE07BC9EE5861C4EA7F2A@MW4PR09MB9664.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
 <CA+Penr-sQYnpzQSgtG1nce+kBApYcvOxLx21Fr8eFgp5uwz5xw@mail.gmail.com>
 <MW4PR09MB9664EAFF5CB2D6BBFC0B755DA7F3A@MW4PR09MB9664.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <MW4PR09MB9664B93B72C3A62B128EECD8A7C4A@MW4PR09MB9664.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>

As a reminder, in order to facilitate the communication after the JLab shutdown, I create a spreadsheet to compile the emails out of the mail list.  I suggest use your institution email for privacy, but this is a suggestion.

Remember, after the shutdown, we will be cutted of any JLab resources, that includes farm, email, and maillist.

Cheers
-Carlos

Last name: Ayerbe OR Ayerbe Gayoso

-------------------------------------------------
If you receive this e-mail after hours, during a weekend, or on a holiday,
please enjoy your time off and respond during your working hours.

________________________________
From: Carlos Ayerbe Gayoso <gayoso at jlab.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 12:06 AM
Cc: color_transp at jlab.org <color_transp at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Color_transp] Alternative Mailling List

You were right. I added your email, and check the permissions. Thank you, new link here:

Pion CT Alternative Maillist.xlsx<https://olddominion-my.sharepoint.com/:x:/g/personal/cayerbeg_odu_edu/EarKqHXL6cNBv77-S92YLC8BLHDnaOOlLIGN-uhHUgAhxw?e=BMzMWN>

Cheers
-Carlos

Last name: Ayerbe OR Ayerbe Gayoso

-------------------------------------------------
If you receive this e-mail after hours, during a weekend, or on a holiday,
please enjoy your time off and respond during your working hours.
________________________________

On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 2:44?PM Carlos Ayerbe Gayoso via Color_transp
<color_transp at jlab.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Piontransparents (I need to find a better noun),
>
> Usurping Holly powers for a minute, I made a spreadsheet to be filled with an alternative email to the jlab.org, for her to call for meetings or just contact with us
>
> Pion CT Alternative Maillist.xlsx
>
> The Excel file should be editable by anyone, but let me know if you have problems with it.
> Remember that all IT resources will be down, that includes, email, maillist, wiki and the farm.
>
> The rumor I heard is that the shutdown will happen this Friday, but I also heard it will on Saturday.
>
> Thank you
>
> Cheers
> -Carlos
>
> Last name: Ayerbe OR Ayerbe Gayoso
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> If you receive this e-mail after hours, during a weekend, or on a holiday,
> please enjoy your time off and respond during your working hours.
> _______________________________________________
> Color_transp mailing list
> Color_transp at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/color_transp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/color_transp/attachments/20251104/f58bf9ca/attachment.htm>

From hszumila at jlab.org  Mon Nov 10 10:01:35 2025
From: hszumila at jlab.org (Holly Szumila-Vance)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 15:01:35 +0000
Subject: [Color_transp] PionCT meeting this Thursday
Message-ID: <SA0PR09MB6235198054552D3ABE62BC6AB6CEA@SA0PR09MB6235.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>

Dear all,

We will meet this Thursday, 13-Nov at 10am EST for our bi-weekly meeting. The connection details are below:
https://fiu.zoom.us/j/81835567762?pwd=jgBXkbSpinXzuSbInvPiwq7QOXIvbc.1
Meeting ID: 818 3556 7762
Passcode: pion2026

The preliminary agenda is posted here (please feel free to edit):
https://hallcweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=13-Nov-25

-Holly

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/color_transp/attachments/20251110/0eb1490e/attachment-0001.htm>

From gayoso at jlab.org  Mon Nov 10 17:51:53 2025
From: gayoso at jlab.org (Carlos Ayerbe Gayoso)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 22:51:53 +0000
Subject: [Color_transp] New kinematics
Message-ID: <MW4PR09MB96648E5C2A2B40C9F9DE7F9EA7CEA@MW4PR09MB9664.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>

Hi All,

I was scaling my table https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R3pbuDNsrS3M-SAq8H1cNxVUEVzxr4vKOxGhfE1ATqA/edit?usp=sharing very rough, to the new Q2 points. I saw in  the run plan, that was already updated, and I would guess, more accurate than just linear interpolation, when the dependence is not linear (I just plotted them to observe the shape).

I also updated the kinematic table in the run plan, and comparing with Sebouh's, both scripts behave similar, except for 8.5 which it differs, unless, t=-0.48 (in my case). It is just an anecdote, I trust in Sebouh's script better than mine.

The only question I have about the new table is if the uncertainty is based in the new run times, original or with the extras. When I was calculating the numbers, in order to achieve the uncertainty in the proposal, should be considered only the original time, and not the extras (like 2 and not 2x3 for 1H or 2.5 and not 2.5+6 for 12C).

Then is the 20% extra suggested by Dipangkar... I forgot, but that 20% is extra data taking to compensate multi-pions isn't it? How affects the total run numbers? (time, events)

Cheers
-Carlos

Last name: Ayerbe OR Ayerbe Gayoso

-------------------------------------------------
If you receive this e-mail after hours, during a weekend, or on a holiday,
please enjoy your time off and respond during your working hours.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/color_transp/attachments/20251110/7f5892fc/attachment.htm>

From sebouh.paul at gmail.com  Tue Nov 11 21:02:17 2025
From: sebouh.paul at gmail.com (Sebouh Paul)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2025 21:02:17 -0500
Subject: [Color_transp] [EXTERNAL] Re:  New kinematics
In-Reply-To: <MW4PR09MB96648E5C2A2B40C9F9DE7F9EA7CEA@MW4PR09MB9664.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
References: <MW4PR09MB96648E5C2A2B40C9F9DE7F9EA7CEA@MW4PR09MB9664.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CA+Penr--HMPbDWf0pZ92LyU_G193=dXiYc2RBdHf-Xx1Hpy+Rw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Carlos,
If I remember correctly, Holly said that having -0.48 on the last point was
not necessary, so I put it to -0.4.  Holly, can you confirm?  Also, the
minimum allowed theta for the pion (which should be parallel to the virtual
photon) is 7.5 degrees, so I analytically determined the values of the
electron kinematics that would make the virtual photon be 7.5 degrees and
used that for the last point.

I calculated the new runtimes based on an interpolation between points in
the previous version of the table, assuming that the amount of time needed
to obtain a given amount of data scaled as e^(const*Q^2), and that the
precision scales as 1/time^2 for a given Q^2.  I then rounded some of these
values to multiples of 0.5 hours, but I can change that back to the
un-rounded values. I used the values obtained before adding additional time
in each case.

Best regards,
Sebouh

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 5:52?PM Carlos Ayerbe Gayoso via Color_transp <
color_transp at jlab.org> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I was scaling my table
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1R3pbuDNsrS3M-2DSAq8H1cNxVUEVzxr4vKOxGhfE1ATqA_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwIFaQ&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=XtVl8BY42jbbWh0Vu1ygqgFBYEJMENirtKAh3P_9ayw&m=658ZEEoo1eRdTBz9_rxWxlVUfVAlyG52JpQDuE0jbeXXWJjj7ylSV2swm-ZYY64W&s=0JbhiaiuPfAm0qTQUh2o9fmdRIFMHTDqqC1P0Qh1KJs&e=  very
> rough, to the new Q2 points. I saw in  the run plan, that was already
> updated, and I would guess, more accurate than just linear interpolation,
> when the dependence is not linear (I just plotted them to observe the
> shape).
>
> I also updated the kinematic table in the run plan, and comparing with
> Sebouh's, both scripts behave similar, except for 8.5 which it differs,
> unless, t=-0.48 (in my case). It is just an anecdote, I trust in Sebouh's
> script better than mine.
>
> The only question I have about the new table is if the uncertainty is
> based in the new run times, original or with the extras. When I was
> calculating the numbers, in order to achieve the uncertainty in the
> proposal, should be considered only the original time, and not the extras
> (like 2 and not 2x3 for 1H or 2.5 and not 2.5+6 for 12C).
>
> Then is the 20% extra suggested by Dipangkar... I forgot, but that 20% is
> extra data taking to compensate multi-pions isn't it? How affects the total
> run numbers? (time, events)
>
> Cheers
> -Carlos
>
> *Last name: *Ayerbe *OR *Ayerbe Gayoso
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> If you receive this e-mail after hours, during a weekend, or on a holiday,
> please enjoy your time off and respond during your working hours.
> _______________________________________________
> Color_transp mailing list
> Color_transp at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/color_transp 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/color_transp/attachments/20251111/e84bf9c6/attachment-0001.htm>

From gayoso at jlab.org  Tue Nov 11 21:30:49 2025
From: gayoso at jlab.org (Carlos Ayerbe Gayoso)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 02:30:49 +0000
Subject: [Color_transp] [EXTERNAL] Re:  New kinematics
In-Reply-To: <CA+Penr--HMPbDWf0pZ92LyU_G193=dXiYc2RBdHf-Xx1Hpy+Rw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <MW4PR09MB96648E5C2A2B40C9F9DE7F9EA7CEA@MW4PR09MB9664.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
 <CA+Penr--HMPbDWf0pZ92LyU_G193=dXiYc2RBdHf-Xx1Hpy+Rw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <MW4PR09MB966484CAD319A94F48EBCA4AA7CCA@MW4PR09MB9664.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>

Sebouh,

That's cool, I just pointed out the difference, not imposing mine over your, not at all. As I said, I was not sure if my code is good or not, I got from AI, and it requires the t value as an input, and then interacts over several values of the kinematics until reaches the t value.

And definitely your interpolation is more accurate than a linear one, so it is cool ?

The rest of the question  is just the extra 20% Dipangkar suggested.

Thank you Sebouh

Cheers

- Carlos
________________________________
From: Sebouh Paul <sebouh.paul at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 9:02:17 PM
To: Carlos Ayerbe Gayoso <gayoso at jlab.org>
Cc: color transp <color_transp at jlab.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Color_transp] New kinematics

Hi Carlos,
If I remember correctly, Holly said that having -0.48 on the last point was not necessary, so I put it to -0.4.  Holly, can you confirm?  Also, the minimum allowed theta for the pion (which should be parallel to the virtual photon) is 7.5 degrees, so I analytically determined the values of the electron kinematics that would make the virtual photon be 7.5 degrees and used that for the last point.

I calculated the new runtimes based on an interpolation between points in the previous version of the table, assuming that the amount of time needed to obtain a given amount of data scaled as e^(const*Q^2), and that the precision scales as 1/time^2 for a given Q^2.  I then rounded some of these values to multiples of 0.5 hours, but I can change that back to the un-rounded values. I used the values obtained before adding additional time in each case.

Best regards,
Sebouh

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 5:52?PM Carlos Ayerbe Gayoso via Color_transp <color_transp at jlab.org<mailto:color_transp at jlab.org>> wrote:
Hi All,

I was scaling my table https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R3pbuDNsrS3M-SAq8H1cNxVUEVzxr4vKOxGhfE1ATqA/edit?usp=sharing<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1R3pbuDNsrS3M-2DSAq8H1cNxVUEVzxr4vKOxGhfE1ATqA_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=zBpTRviCWTYKVxKBn5kVRA&m=_DhIDhOHfTU89VtgfLLdnTnZpFA0oD02J-5AZRg7Zyzttwos3omWQFmTGabfxFi3&s=dn63x8uRa8rOpHq3yrNqVDEeau3ylzeSied--A6hNtA&e=> very rough, to the new Q2 points. I saw in  the run plan, that was already updated, and I would guess, more accurate than just linear interpolation, when the dependence is not linear (I just plotted them to observe the shape).

I also updated the kinematic table in the run plan, and comparing with Sebouh's, both scripts behave similar, except for 8.5 which it differs, unless, t=-0.48 (in my case). It is just an anecdote, I trust in Sebouh's script better than mine.

The only question I have about the new table is if the uncertainty is based in the new run times, original or with the extras. When I was calculating the numbers, in order to achieve the uncertainty in the proposal, should be considered only the original time, and not the extras (like 2 and not 2x3 for 1H or 2.5 and not 2.5+6 for 12C).

Then is the 20% extra suggested by Dipangkar... I forgot, but that 20% is extra data taking to compensate multi-pions isn't it? How affects the total run numbers? (time, events)

Cheers
-Carlos

Last name: Ayerbe OR Ayerbe Gayoso

-------------------------------------------------
If you receive this e-mail after hours, during a weekend, or on a holiday,
please enjoy your time off and respond during your working hours.
_______________________________________________
Color_transp mailing list
Color_transp at jlab.org<mailto:Color_transp at jlab.org>
https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/color_transp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/color_transp/attachments/20251112/228cde90/attachment.htm>