[G14_run] Questions to Dao's presentation (T. Kageya)

Tue Jun 16 16:51:27 EDT 2015

Hi Dao,

 Thank you for the draft presentation.    They look nice.
 I have some questions (I am not familiar with the second topic).

For Dibaryon: 

(1) At. p. 41, I guess IM means invariant mass ?     Why you are taking IM of Pi+ and Pi- ?   It is not clear for me.

(2) At. p. 43, what is Ξ2 fitting algorithm (for Poisson distribution) ?   
Sorry, I am not familiar with this.

(3)  At p 48, you are mentioning the Eg cut.    For the analysis, are you applying Eg cuts ?

(4) What have you motivated to assume N-Delta instead of Delta-Delta like d*(2380) ?
Can you exclude the possible Delta-Delta d*(2380) state for your candidate ?

    Regards, Tsuneo Kageya.

----- Original Message -----
From: "g14 run-request" <g14_run-request at jlab.org>
To: "g14 run" <g14_run at jlab.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 12:00:04 PM
Subject: G14_run Digest, Vol 45, Issue 4

Send G14_run mailing list submissions to
	g14_run at jlab.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	g14_run-request at jlab.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	g14_run-owner at jlab.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of G14_run digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Presentation for CLAS meeting - comments (Andy Sandorfi)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:01:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andy Sandorfi <sandorfi at jlab.org>
To: daoh <daoh at andrew.cmu.edu>
Cc: g14 run <g14_run at jlab.org>
Subject: [G14_run] Presentation for CLAS meeting - comments
Message-ID:
	<2114199863.1287619.1434409269762.JavaMail.zimbra at jlab.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Hi Dao,

Nice presentation of a complex topic(S). A few comments follow,...Andy

? title page: dpi? channel => dpi+pi-

now first comments on pi-p:
_____________________________________
? slide 6: the labels in the boxes of the sample tree are completely unreadable

? slide 9: split into two slides;
the second half appears to be an outline of what is to follow in slides 10-15. But it's not easy to follow which steps are in common to both BKG-subtraction and BDT, and which slides pertain to one or the other. The title bars do not seem to follow the color coding of slide 9; It would be better to state that at the top of the slides.

? slide 10: This appears to be the sequential cuts used in the BKG-subt method. 
a) didn't you include a coplanarity cut in the BKG-subt method?
b) the title of slide 10 should be "pi-p event selection for BKG-subt".
c) shouldn't the title bar be green, for the BKG-subt method?

? slide 11: I don't think "coplanary" is a word. Use "coplanarity".

? slide 13: somewhere, define the criteria for "optimal" separation of S & B, i.e. a maximum in S/sqrt(S+B); it is written in the lower corner of the upper-right plot, but it's far too small to read. A separate slide that shows a plot of S/sqrt(S+B) vs the BDT variable would both explain the criteria as well as help the audience understand the sensitivity to the BDT variable. The tree in the lower left is again unreadable.

? slides 11-14: make the color of the title bars match whatever color you use for BDT in the outline of slide 9

? slide 14: the best way to show the effectiveness of the BDT is to show the MVRT decomposition for the empty data. I find the plot for the gold data at the bottom of slide 14 very confusing - e.g.. why does 1/2 of the Z=1 KelF peak survive the BDT selection ??? That doesn't look good. (I wonder if it's because you opened the preBDT selection up to MissMom < 0.4. I don't think we ever looked at results with MissMom larger than 0.2 .)

? slide 15: in the equation of the 3rd last line, what is meant by the red "show empty" ???

? slide 16, bottom row of plots: make one y-axis label big so people can see what's plotted.

? slide 19: I check that the blue SAID curves correctly represent their CM12 solution; where did you get SAID[2014]? If that's really their latest, point out while showing the slide that the 2014 predictions have become significantly worse at the higher energies compared to their 2012 solution.

? slide 21: next to each bulleted test item, put in brackets the percent sys error, so people can see which effects are the most important. Also, did you add these in quadrature or linearly? In the absence of information on correlations, one should add them in quadrature - sqrt(sum of squares).

? slide 22: 5th bullet - refer to SAID and BoGa as "PWA" not "theoretical models"; neither include dynamical models. 

____________________________

other sections to follow ,....

----- Original Message -----
From: "daoh" <daoh at andrew.cmu.edu>
To: "g14 run" <g14_run at jlab.org>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 7:40:52 PM
Subject: [G14_run] Presentation for CLAS meeting

Dear all,

I have put together a presentation which summarizes my final results. This
talk will be presented at the incoming HALL B physics working group
meeting on Thursday 06/18. Could you take a look at the presentation and
give me suggestion(s)? I would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Dao Ho
_______________________________________________
G14_run mailing list
G14_run at jlab.org
https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
G14_run mailing list
G14_run at jlab.org
https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run

------------------------------

End of G14_run Digest, Vol 45, Issue 4
**************************************