[Color_transp] [EXTERNAL] Re: New kinematics

[Carlos Ayerbe Gayoso]

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>