[G12] g12 review

[Michael Paolone]

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 “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 >
>>> 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
>