[Deeppwg] NSTAR proceedings

[Paul Stoler]

Hi Daria:
	I am following this discussion. It is really a nice piece of work.
	I have a tiny, non-consequential request. When plotting asymmetries, always draw a horizontal axis at A = zero.
Regards,
Paul



> On Dec 2, 2015, at 4:55 AM, Silvia Niccolai <silvia at jlab.org> wrote:
> 
> Hello Daria,
> yes, you should definetely quote your average kinematics, which, if I recall correctly, is different from the Hall A one, at least in xB.
> If you look at the attached plot, showing VGG predictions for the BSA of nDVCS with CLAS12, the value of the BSA is expected to undergo strong variations, as a function of xB, Q2, and t. So the fact that your BSA is nonzero, unlike the Hall A one, per se doesn't shock me.
> The problem, in my opinion, lies in showing the results of the fit without specifying that this is a raw asymmetry, lacking many important factors, and that no systematic studies have been yet done. If I recall well, from your studies of some time ago, it seemed like the size of your signal was very sensitive (changing by factors 2 or the like) to your PID and exclusivity cuts. Until the signal is not stable and the uncertainties correctly estimated, publishing it makes not much sense.
> Maybe one solution would be to use "arbitrary units" and show only the fit curve, to guide the eye, without the value of the parameter. This would give an idea of our statistics and the "non-zeroeness" of the signal, without making unjustified claims.
> Silvia
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Daria Sokhan wrote:
> 
>> Dear everyone,
>> 
>> Please also see Michel Garçon's comment below (it bounced from the list).
>> 
>> Michel, I should have noted that the kinematics is slightly different
>> between the Hall A result and mine. I will look up my average x, Q^2, t and
>> also quote them.
>> 
>> What is the general feeling on showing the BSA? I could show the plot but
>> mask the y-scale, for example...
>> 
>> Many thanks,
>> Daria
>> 
>> 
>> On 2 December 2015 at 08:19, Garcon Michel <Michel.Garcon at cea.fr> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear Daria et al.,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>                I am in general in favor of waiting until there is a
>>> submitted analysis note to preliminary results in proceedings, except if
>>> the recognition of the work of a student or post-doc cannot wait, or if the
>>> work was presented and discussed without any show stopper in the DP-PWG.
>>> This being said, I accept that we have flexible rules.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>                In this particular case, even for the case of BSA, the
>>> fact that a number of corrections have not been done (pi0 subtraction,..),
>>> combined with the observation that the result may seem at variance with
>>> Hall A results where the asymmetry on the neutron was found compatible with
>>> 0, should question us. You acknowledge in the text that the results may
>>> still change significantly! I would then not be in favor of publishing
>>> these preliminary results at this stage.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>                My two cents,
>>> 
>>>                               Michel.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *_______________*
>>> 
>>> *Michel Garçon*
>>> 
>>> *Irfu/SPhN                                               *
>>> 
>>> *CEA-Saclay, bât. 703                               *
>>> 
>>> *91191 Gif-sur-Yvette cedex        *
>>> 
>>> *France                                          *
>>> 
>>> *Tél.:** +33 1 69 08 86 23 <%2B33%201%2069%2008%2086%2023>*
>>> 
> <asym_newcuts_new_test.eps>_______________________________________________
> Deeppwg mailing list
> Deeppwg at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/deeppwg