[G12] g12 review

Tue Jun 30 15:04:10 EDT 2015

Hi, All,

I think there was some communication breakdown and for that I do apologize on behalf of the g12 group. Pawel has been coming to the g12 meetings in the last few weeks, and I think we are now in a good position to work together for these reviews. Personally, I do feel it is important that the g12 group (not just one person in the TCS review committee) is aware of the details of the TCS analysis. TCS is not the only projects that analyzes final states with e+e- in g12, it will be a mistake for people to make redundant efforts, I think.

Cheers!

Lei

Lei Guo
Assistant Professor
Physics Department
Florida International University
Miami, FL

email: leguo at fiu.edu <mailto:leguo at fiu.edu> or lguo at jlab.org
Office:305-348-0234

> On Jun 30, 2015, at 2:58 PM, Pawel Nadel-Turonski <turonski at jlab.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Eugene,
> 
> I am sorry that the details of the TCS review did not reach you - but we did have discussions with Raffaella and Lei before Keith formed the DPWG committee. There is also a g12 person among the reviewers of the TCS analysis, who is also actively working on the g12 analysis note. Also, this is not an uncommon procedure in CLAS. For instance, some g13 analyses are being presented and reviewed in the hadron spectroscopy group and other in the nuclear group depending on the physics that is being pursued. In the case of TCS, we felt that it was important to have reviewers who were familiar with TCS and DVCS as well as the details of g12 and photoproduction experiments. I think that Keith set up a perfect committee to address the challenges that this analysis presents. The TCS analysis well known to the g12 run group - and while the treatment of some some subsystems (TOF, EC, CC) are specific to the TCS analysis, it uses the same basic tools (cooking, skims, etc). The folks working on TCS are collaborating with other in the g12 run group both on issues specific to TCS as well as those which are not. Thus, while one never can have too good communication, I have a feeling that things are perhaps not as bad as you fear.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 	Pawel
> 
> 
>> On Jun 30, 2015, at 2:10 PM, Eugene Pasyuk <pasyuk at jlab.org <mailto:pasyuk at jlab.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> 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 <mailto:theodore.goetz at gmail.com>>
>> To: "Keith Griffioen" <griff at physics.wm.edu <mailto:griff at physics.wm.edu>>, "Eugene Pasyuk" <pasyuk at jlab.org <mailto:pasyuk at jlab.org>>
>> Cc: "Marco Battaglieri" <battaglieri at ge.infn.it <mailto:battaglieri at ge.infn.it>>, "Dave Ireland" <david.ireland at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:david.ireland at glasgow.ac.uk>>, "Gerald Gilfoyle" <gilfoyle at jlab.org <mailto:gilfoyle at jlab.org>>, "Raffaella De Vita" <raffaella.devita at ge.infn.it <mailto:raffaella.devita at ge.infn.it>>, "Michael Dugger" <dugger at jlab.org <mailto:dugger at jlab.org>>, "Yordanka Ilieva" <jordanka at jlab.org <mailto:jordanka at jlab.org>>, "Lei Guo" <lguo at jlab.org <mailto:lguo at jlab.org>>, "Silvia Niccolai" <niccolai at ipno.in2p3.fr <mailto: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 <mailto: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 “deep” 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, let’s 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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:G12 at jlab.org>
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g12
> 
> _______________________________________________
> G12 mailing list
> G12 at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g12

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/g12/attachments/20150630/96157a98/attachment-0001.html>