[G12] g12 review

Mon Jul 6 23:39:35 EDT 2015

Hi Everyone,

Given Dave’s comments below, I would like to recommission the DPWG TCS committee to continue their review of Ibrahim’s analysis note.  The committee should inform itself of all points of overlap with the G12 umbrella review in their evaluation of the TCS analysis.  In the end, the TCS review, which goes beyond the umbrella analysis, has to have an independent review, regardless of whether this slows down or speeds up the road to publication.

Our goal is to publish analyses that are sound in a timely fashion.  We have not had the luxury of requiring two parallel analyses for every paper, so the next-best thing is the working-group review.   The CLAS structure does not allow for a homomorphic mapping from run group to working group.  I have seen many cases of analyses in one run group that go to different working groups for review.  This is healthy, because it tends to bring in knowledgeable outsiders into the reviews.  This will become more prevalent in the future as we have longer runs at 12 GeV.  I would hate to see the well-intended umbrella review make it harder to move other analyses through collaboration scrutiny.  A good umbrella should be Ref. 1 in the much abbreviated analysis notes to come, but as a rule there is still a need for individual analysis notes.

Thanks,
Keith
DPWG Chair

> On Jul 1, 2015, at 12:45 PM, Dave Ireland <David.Ireland at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> <David_Ireland.vcf>