[G12] g12 review

Wed Jul 1 12:45:37 EDT 2015

Hi Folks,

I am sure that everyone would agree that we should try to find a 
reasonable solution that moves all the analyses from g12 forward as 
quickly as possible. We are where we are! The run-group review is 
something of a trial, so we should not expect it to run without any hitches.

Given Michael's comment about a likely difference in fiducial cuts, I 
think it is very important that the two review committees establish what 
is common between the spectroscopy analyses and the TCS analysis before 
anything else. I certainly do not want to hold up any analysis review 
unnecessarily, but this is definitely a case where we should try to 
impose common analysis procedures, since it is the overwhelming view of 
the collaboration that this be done in the future.

I don't want to interfere too much, so I will leave this to the two 
working groups to decide on how to proceed. I suggest that the two 
committees may need to communicate, and I am pleased to see that there 
is a general sense that the g12 group should monitor all the analyses 
from that run period in a coherent fashion.

Cheers,

Dave

On 06/30/15 20:33, Michael Paolone wrote:
> Hi Eugene,
>
> I can't speak on behalf of the entire g12 group, but I can speak on behalf
> of myself as a g12 member and a member of Ibrahim Albayrak's analysis
> committee.
>
> I suspect the main reason his analysis note was written as a separate note
> to the g12 one is, simply, the g12 group didn't know Ibrahim was writing
> his note, and Ibrahim didn't know that the g12 group had written an
> umbrella note.
>
> You would have to ask Ibrahim directly if the above is true, but I don't
> think he has joined any of our weekly g12 meetings or responded to group
> emails since before the idea of a g12 procedures note was presented.  This
> isn't unique to Ibrahim, as we have had 30+ people work on g12 analyses
> since the experiment ran, and not all join our meeting every week or keep
> up with group's work.  It would have been beneficial to both Ibrahim and
> the g12 group if we had stayed in better contact, but Ibrahim was still
> able to complete his analysis.  It remains commendable that he worked very
> hard to produce a comprehensive note and move toward publication.
>
> As to why I didn't bring this up at the collaboration meeting:  I didn't
> think it was an issue.  It was my understanding that the collective g12
> procedures note was there to streamline future g12 analysis reviews.  I
> didn't think it was REQUIRED for all current and future analyses to use
> it.  As it stands, the TLC analysis note was submitted for review as
> independent of the g12 procedures note, and that is how I approached it as
> a reviewer.  There is a lot of overlap that is handled in a slightly
> different way (like fiducial cuts, as one example), but keep in mind that
> Ibrahim likely instituted those procedures in his analysis long before the
> ones in the g12 procedures were ever documented.  As long as his
> procedures are defensible within the framework of his specific analysis, I
> don't see why his review can't move forward.  That being said, it might be
> in Ibrahim's best interests to wait on the umbrella review to be approved,
> as some of the TLC reviewer's questions pertain to things clarified in the
> g12 procedures note.
>
> -Michael
>
>
>> I think g12 group should give us some explanations.
>> Why we did not know about the second review. We had dedicated discussion
>> at the last collaboration meeting and no one said anything. Or may be g12
>> group did not know about it either?
>> How much the time-like Compton analysis relies on common g12 procedures
>> documented in the g12 umbrella note. Is there an overlap between two
>> notes?
>>
>> -Eugene
>>
>>> From: "Johann Goetz" <theodore.goetz at gmail.com>
>>> To: "Keith Griffioen" <griff at physics.wm.edu>, "Eugene Pasyuk"
>>> <pasyuk at jlab.org>
>>> Cc: "Marco Battaglieri" <battaglieri at ge.infn.it>, "Dave Ireland"
>>> <david.ireland at glasgow.ac.uk>, "Gerald Gilfoyle" <gilfoyle at jlab.org>,
>>> "Raffaella De Vita" <raffaella.devita at ge.infn.it>, "Michael Dugger"
>>> <dugger at jlab.org>, "Yordanka Ilieva" <jordanka at jlab.org>, "Lei Guo"
>>> <lguo at jlab.org>, "Silvia Niccolai" <niccolai at ipno.in2p3.fr>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 1:54:21 PM
>>> Subject: Re: g12 review
>>
>>> maybe part of the lack of communications stems from the fact that people
>>> do not
>>> think it necessary to use the g12 mailing list!
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:32 PM Keith Griffioen < griff at physics.wm.edu >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Hi Eugene,
>>
>>>> Speaking as DPWG Chair, let me first apologize for lack of coordination
>>>> on this
>>>> matter with the Spectroscopy group. I think what you are doing with an
>>>> umbrella
>>>> analysis note is excellent. This streamlining is a model for the
>>>> future.
>>
>>>> Within the CLAS collaboration there has never been a one-to-one
>>>> correspondence
>>>> between a run group and a working group. Recently there has been enough
>>>> overlap
>>>> between nuclear and deep-processes that we have started to run our
>>>> sessions
>>>> sequentially so people can attend both. With the advent of
>>>> deeply-virtual meson
>>>> production, the overlap between deep processes and spectroscopy is now
>>>> increasing. All of this is a good thing, but it will require better
>>>> communication between the working groups.
>>
>>>> Ibrahim Albayrak has given talks in the Deep Processes working group on
>>>> time-like Compton scattering (a â?odeepâ? process) from g12 data in
>>>> October 2012,
>>>> February 2013, and June 2013. Ibrahim and I had been in contact during
>>>> the time
>>>> of his writing an analysis note, and I assigned a committee once this
>>>> note was
>>>> in good form.
>>
>>>> I see no reason why the DPWG analysis reviewers should not be informed
>>>> by the
>>>> umbrella review, and, therefore, they can focus on the specifics of the
>>>> time-like Compton analysis. This would be a model for the future, in
>>>> which the
>>>> nuts-and-bolts of analysis (calibrations, cooking, momentum
>>>> corrections, etc.)
>>>> are discussed in an umbrella note, and specifics are contained in
>>>> shorter, more
>>>> specific individual analysis notes.
>>
>>>> So, letâ?Ts consider this as an experiment, albeit imperfect under the
>>>> circumstances. In the future, with better communication, we can learn
>>>> to avoid
>>>> the duplication of effort seen in this case.
>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Keith
>>
>>>>> On Jun 30, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Eugene Pasyuk < pasyuk at jlab.org >
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>
>>>>> It was brought to my attention that while we are working on the g12
>>>>> run group
>>>>> review there is another g12 analysis review ongoing in the deep
>>>>> process working
>>>>> group. This is time-like Compton scattering.
>>>>> https://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/shifts/index.php?display=admin&task=paper_review&rid=6996371&operation=view
>>>>> This review has started in April of 2015 while the group review has
>>>>> started in
>>>>> October 2014.
>>>>> Interestingly enough this analysis note has twice as many pages as the
>>>>> group
>>>>> one.
>>
>>>>> To me it looks like a lack of coordination and communication between
>>>>> the physics
>>>>> working groups and even within g12 group.
>>>>> The whole point of the group review was to avoid duplication of
>>>>> efforts in
>>>>> reviewing the same things over and over.
>>
>>>>> Can anyone comment why did this happen and what are we going to do
>>>> about it.
>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>
>>>>> -Eugene
>> _______________________________________________
>> G12 mailing list
>> G12 at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g12
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: David_Ireland.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 357 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/g12/attachments/20150701/678ccdfa/attachment.vcf>