[G14_run] Systematic uncertainties on asymmetries - (Tsuneo's question to K Sigma analysis note)
Igor Strakovsky
igor at gwu.edu
Wed Nov 8 17:49:22 EST 2017
In fact, different people called it differently - as Eugene suggested or
scaling factor or renormalizaton parameter or overall (energy dependent)
systemarics
On Nov 8, 2017 4:39 PM, "Eugene Pasyuk" <pasyuk at jlab.org> wrote:
> The best way to avoid confusion is to call it systematic scale
> uncertainty.
>
> Sent from Galaxy S8
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 5:07 PM -0500, "Nicholas Zachariou" <
> nicholas at jlab.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Andy,
>>
>> That makes perfect sense now!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>> On 8 Nov 2017, at 21:03, Dr. A.M. Sandorfi <sandorfi at jlab.org> wrote:
>>
>> Nick,
>>
>> Pardon my cavalier interchange of the words “error” and “uncertainty”.
>> But that’s not the point. There is a systematic uncertainty in the beam
>> polarization, for example, and its variation from the nominal value is
>> approximated by a gaussian distribution with a 1 sigma of 3.4%. So, someone
>> else using the data set in some calculation is allowed to consider
>> different values of that polarization within this distribution. BUT, if an
>> overall fit to some model, a PWA, ...whatever, prefers a value for the beam
>> polarization that is different from our quoted nominal, he/she must shift
>> ALL of our data points together by exactly the same factor, because that’s
>> how the measurement responds to a change to that parameter. {For example,
>> If the assumed beam polarization is lowered by X%, then the deduced
>> asymmetry values in kinematic bins at W=1800 and cosA= -0.3, and at W=2100
>> and cosA= +0.6, go up by exactly the same X%.} That’s the point! For this
>> reason one does not combine uncertainties in the overall scale of an entire
>> data set in quadrature with point-to-point uncertainties.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/8/17, 5:20 PM, "Nicholas Zachariou" <nicholas at jlab.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> Thank you for the explanation. I do agree that that would be the correct
>> way to do so if we found a systematic error (and not uncertainty). In that
>> case we would need to shift our points to account for the systematic
>> offset. In most cases (and in the analysis we have done for the E
>> observable on K+Sigma-) the systematic studies yield uncertainties (i.e.
>> the systematic effect of specific sources can produce higher or lower in
>> magnitude observables). The same goes for the photon polarization. The 3.4%
>> is a systematic uncertainty and not an error. This means that the true
>> value of the photon polarization can vary from the nominal value by 3.4% in
>> either direction. This effects our observable E directly in magnitude, so I
>> think its more proper to include that in the total uncertainty by adding it
>> to the statistical in quadrature. Maybe I am missing something and would
>> love to discuss more on this during the meeting.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Nick
>>
>>
>> On 8 Nov 2017, at 17:35, Dr. A.M. Sandorfi <sandorfi at jlab.org> wrote:
>>
>> Re: [G14_run] Systematic uncertainties on asymmetries - (Tsuneo's
>> question to K Sigma analysis note)
>> Nick,
>>
>> A systematic scale uncertainty represents a shift to the entire data set
>> as a hole. For example, imagine you find out after publication that a
>> polarization (beam or target) was to high by 5%. How do you correct that –
>> you multiply every data point by 0.95. Essentially, that just changes the
>> scale of the axes in a plot of the data. The point-to-point statistical
>> fluctuations do not change. That is not the equivalent to increasing the
>> size of the point-to-point fluctuations.
>>
>> Now there can be some components of the systematic uncertainty that
>> change with kinematic bins, and these parts could be added in quadrature
>> with statistical errors. But those do not usually dominate the total
>> systematic error. For this reason, when it comes time to publish,
>> point-to-point systematics and scale uncertainties should be clearly quoted
>> separated – as we have done in our recent pi-p PRL.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/7/17, 11:02 PM, "Nicholas Zachariou" <nicholas at jlab.org <x-msg:
>> //22/nicholas at jlab.org> > wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> Can you elaborate why its not correct to add the systematic in quadrature
>> with the statistical?
>> I am not sure I understand why this "uses data that dont represent the
>> experiment". Maybe we can talk more during the g14 meeting.
>>
>> Nick
>> On Nov 7, 2017, at 22:22, "Dr. A.M. Sandorfi" <sandorfi at jlab.org <x-msg:
>> //22/sandorfi at jlab.org> > wrote:
>>
>> Hi Eugene,
>>
>> Yes, your point is well taken - for those data points where the asymmetry
>> is
>> very close to zero. One has two choices: we could either give an overall
>> fractional (%) uncertainty, while quoting the absolute value as an
>> exception
>> when the asymmetry vanishes, or just quote only an absolute uncertainty
>> for
>> all points.
>>
>> The trouble comes at the subsequent stage when the data is used by the
>> various PWA groups. All PWA groups have their fitting routines set up to
>> float the scale of a data set while including a chi^2 penalty that is
>> weighted by a fractional systematic error. If we give them a systematic
>> uncertainty that is absolute, they will combine it in quadrature with the
>> statistical error to create an inflated point by point uncertainty, and
>> set
>> the fitting scale to 1. I can guarantee that this will happen and it is a
>> completely incorrect way to use the data that doesn't represent the
>> experiment. So it is better to use the first approach - quote the
>> systematic
>> uncertainty as a fractional (%) error, while explicitly noting the
>> absolute
>> value of the systematic uncertainty for those asymmetry points with nearly
>> zero value. The later qualifying statement will probably be ignored in PWA
>> analyses, but at least most of the data will have been included properly.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/4/17, 11:37 PM, "Eugene Pasyuk" <pasyuk at jlab.org <x-msg:
>> //22/pasyuk at jlab.org> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Any asymmetry can be anything between -1 and +1, 0 included. For any
>> observable which may be equal to 0 relative uncertainty does not make
>> sense.
>> Only absolute uncertainty must be used.
>> The second term in Nick's equation is equal to 0 if ObservableValue is
>> always
>> equal to 0 regardless of sigma_sys_relative. This is incorrect but good
>> illustration why one must not use relative uncertainty for asymmetries.
>>
>> -Eugene
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: "Tsuneo Kageya" <kageya at jlab.org <x-msg://22/kageya@jlab.org> >
>> To: "Nicholas Zachariou" <nicholas at jlab.org <x-msg:
>> //22/nicholas at jlab.org> >
>> Cc: "g14 run" <g14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/g14_run@jlab.org> >
>> Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 10:57:28 PM
>> Subject: Re: [G14_run] G14_run Digest, Vol 74, Issue 3 (Tuneo's
>> question to
>> K Sigma analysis note)
>>
>>
>> Nick,
>>
>> thank you for the response.
>> I would like to know why the absolute is more appropriate.
>> I will look forward the statements.
>>
>> Regards, Tsuneo Kageya.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Nicholas Zachariou" <nicholas at jlab.org <x-msg:
>> //22/nicholas at jlab.org> >
>> To: "Tsuneo Kageya" <kageya at jlab.org <x-msg://22/kageya@jlab.org> >
>> Cc: "g14 run" <g14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/g14_run@jlab.org> >
>> Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 3:23:46 PM
>> Subject: Re: [G14_run] G14_run Digest, Vol 74, Issue 3 (Tuneo's
>> question to
>> K
>> Sigma analysis note)
>>
>> Hi Tsuneo,
>>
>> The absolute error is propagated directly to the total uncertainty
>> (sigma_tot=sqrt(sigma_sys_absolute^2+(ObservableValue*sigma_sys_relative)^2
>> +
>> sigma_statistical^2).
>>
>> I can elaborate more if you like on why thats the case (why absolute are
>> more
>> appropriate in my case). I will include some statements in the note to
>> reflect
>> this.
>>
>> Let me know if you would like to discuss this more.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Nick
>>
>> On Nov 4, 2017, 19:12, at 19:12, Tsuneo Kageya <kageya at jlab.org <x-msg:
>> //22/kageya at jlab.org> > wrote:
>>
>> Hi Nick,
>>
>> Sorry to be late to make a question.
>> I have a question about the systematic error calculations.
>>
>> At page 35, on the table 4, you calculated the total absolute
>> systematic error
>> to be 0.10. How this is reflected into the total relative systematic
>> error ?
>> On the pi-p analysis, I think we calculated the systematic errors from
>> cuts in
>> the similar way and they are combined to the other errors (target and
>> beam polarizations).
>> Is this number 0.10 means 10 % or 0.1 % ?
>>
>> I may misunderstand this issue. Please let me know.
>>
>> Regards, Tsuneo Kageya.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "g14 run-request" <g14_run-request at jlab.org <x-msg:
>> //22/g14_run-request at jlab.org> >
>> To: "g14 run" <g14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/g14_run@jlab.org> >
>> Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 12:00:03 PM
>> Subject: G14_run Digest, Vol 74, Issue 3
>>
>> Send G14_run mailing list submissions to
>> g14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/g14_run@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 <x-msg://22/g14_run-request@jlab.org>
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> g14_run-owner at jlab.org <x-msg://22/g14_run-owner@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. Re: Updated Analysis Note (Reinhard Schumacher)
>> 2. Re: Updated Analysis Note (Nicholas Zachariou)
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 22:19:24 -0400
>> From: Reinhard Schumacher <schumacher at cmu.edu <x-msg:
>> //22/schumacher at cmu.edu> >
>> To: g14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/g14_run@jlab.org>
>> Subject: Re: [G14_run] Updated Analysis Note
>> Message-ID: <a5780718-56ac-1dc0-44e8-6b991dbf849b at cmu.edu <x-msg:
>> //22/a5780718-56ac-1dc0-44e8-6b991dbf849b at cmu.edu> >
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
>>
>> Hi Nick,
>>
>> Indeed, noticeably improved.?? I recommend that you put the horizontal
>> error bars on Figs.? 29 - 32, too.? They are just as important there
>> since the model curves can vary a lot across one bin.
>>
>> Reinhard
>>
>>
>> On 11/3/2017 7:13 PM, Nicholas Zachariou wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I am attaching the updated note that incorporates and addresses all
>>
>> comments made. I have noticed that I have previously forgotten to
>> include the systematic uncertainty associated with the
>> photon-selection, and is now estimated and included.
>>
>> I would like to thank again Shumacher for his time and valuable
>>
>> insight, and everybody for the comments and feedback. If there is no
>> other comments, I will be submitting the note early next week.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> G14_run mailing list
>> G14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/G14_run@jlab.org>
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Reinhard Schumacher Department of Physics, 5000 Forbes Ave.
>> Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, U.S.A.
>> phone: 412-268-5177 <(412)%20268-5177> web:
>> www-meg.phys.cmu.edu/~schumach <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www-2Dmeg.phys.cmu.edu_-7Eschumach&d=DwIFaQ&c=lz9TcOasaINaaC3U7FbMev2lsutwpI4--09aP8Lu18s&r=S2ZLWreG80lNvNTOLF-ZWA&m=-6DaNVZ9_JTRT9yuBzZIwbISHt-42o_TByX1vXSHu_k&s=iGUeshHNnoh3D9Y3TCkgA4TzNjJPqaxuYTEQZN-pew0&e= > <
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www-2Dmeg.phys.cmu.edu_-7Eschumach&d=DwIFaQ&c=lz9TcOasaINaaC3U7FbMev2lsutwpI4--09aP8Lu18s&r=S2ZLWreG80lNvNTOLF-ZWA&m=-6DaNVZ9_JTRT9yuBzZIwbISHt-42o_TByX1vXSHu_k&s=iGUeshHNnoh3D9Y3TCkgA4TzNjJPqaxuYTEQZN-pew0&e= >
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>> <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/g14_run/attachments/>> 20171103/651ca313/at
>> tachment-0001.html>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2017 07:10:14 +0000
>> From: Nicholas Zachariou <nicholas at jlab.org <x-msg:
>> //22/nicholas at jlab.org> >
>> To: Reinhard Schumacher <schumacher at cmu.edu <x-msg:
>> //22/schumacher at cmu.edu> >
>> Cc: G14 Run <g14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/g14_run@jlab.org> >
>> Subject: Re: [G14_run] Updated Analysis Note
>> Message-ID: <d21ed42f-6b13-482d-8c8b-4ea087ad31e1 at jlab.org <x-msg:
>> //22/d21ed42f-6b13-482d-8c8b-4ea087ad31e1 at jlab.org> >
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Hi Reinhard,
>>
>> The figures looked a bit busy when I did that (too many lines) and
>> thats why i left the x-uncertainties out in those, but its takes me 2
>> minutes to incorborate them. I think that will be more relevant when we
>> decide exactly how to present our results in the publication.
>>
>> In the meantime I was wondering if its OK with the group to share our
>> preliminary results with the theorists and see if we can get any
>> insights from them.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Nick
>>
>>
>> On Nov 4, 2017, 02:19, at 02:19, Reinhard Schumacher
>> <schumacher at cmu.edu <x-msg://22/schumacher@cmu.edu> > wrote:
>>
>> Hi Nick,
>>
>> Indeed, noticeably improved.?? I recommend that you put the horizontal
>>
>>
>> error bars on Figs.? 29 - 32, too.? They are just as important there
>> since the model curves can vary a lot across one bin.
>>
>> Reinhard
>>
>>
>> On 11/3/2017 7:13 PM, Nicholas Zachariou wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I am attaching the updated note that incorporates and addresses all
>> comments made. I have noticed that I have previously forgotten to
>> include the systematic uncertainty associated with the
>> photon-selection, and is now estimated and included.
>> I would like to thank again Shumacher for his time and valuable
>> insight, and everybody for the comments and feedback. If there is no
>> other comments, I will be submitting the note early next week.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> G14_run mailing list
>> G14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/G14_run@jlab.org>
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Reinhard Schumacher Department of Physics, 5000 Forbes Ave.
>> Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, U.S.A.
>> phone: 412-268-5177 <(412)%20268-5177> web:
>> www-meg.phys.cmu.edu/~schumach <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www-2Dmeg.phys.cmu.edu_-7Eschumach&d=DwIFaQ&c=lz9TcOasaINaaC3U7FbMev2lsutwpI4--09aP8Lu18s&r=S2ZLWreG80lNvNTOLF-ZWA&m=-6DaNVZ9_JTRT9yuBzZIwbISHt-42o_TByX1vXSHu_k&s=iGUeshHNnoh3D9Y3TCkgA4TzNjJPqaxuYTEQZN-pew0&e= > <
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www-2Dmeg.phys.cmu.edu_-7Eschumach&d=DwIFaQ&c=lz9TcOasaINaaC3U7FbMev2lsutwpI4--09aP8Lu18s&r=S2ZLWreG80lNvNTOLF-ZWA&m=-6DaNVZ9_JTRT9yuBzZIwbISHt-42o_TByX1vXSHu_k&s=iGUeshHNnoh3D9Y3TCkgA4TzNjJPqaxuYTEQZN-pew0&e= >
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> G14_run mailing list
>> G14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/G14_run@jlab.org>
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>> <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/g14_run/attachments/>> 20171104/14965baf/at
>> tachment-0001.html>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> G14_run mailing list
>> G14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/G14_run@jlab.org>
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> End of G14_run Digest, Vol 74, Issue 3
>> **************************************
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> G14_run mailing list
>> G14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/G14_run@jlab.org>
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> G14_run mailing list
>> G14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/G14_run@jlab.org>
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> G14_run mailing list
>> G14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/G14_run@jlab.org>
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> G14_run mailing list
>> G14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/G14_run@jlab.org>
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Hi Andy,
>
> That makes perfect sense now!
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> On 8 Nov 2017, at 21:03, Dr. A.M. Sandorfi <sandorfi at jlab.org> wrote:
>
> Nick,
>
> Pardon my cavalier interchange of the words “error” and “uncertainty”. But
> that’s not the point. There is a systematic uncertainty in the beam
> polarization, for example, and its variation from the nominal value is
> approximated by a gaussian distribution with a 1 sigma of 3.4%. So, someone
> else using the data set in some calculation is allowed to consider
> different values of that polarization within this distribution. BUT, if an
> overall fit to some model, a PWA, ...whatever, prefers a value for the beam
> polarization that is different from our quoted nominal, he/she must shift
> ALL of our data points together by exactly the same factor, because that’s
> how the measurement responds to a change to that parameter. {For example,
> If the assumed beam polarization is lowered by X%, then the deduced
> asymmetry values in kinematic bins at W=1800 and cosA= -0.3, and at W=2100
> and cosA= +0.6, go up by exactly the same X%.} That’s the point! For this
> reason one does not combine uncertainties in the overall scale of an entire
> data set in quadrature with point-to-point uncertainties.
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/8/17, 5:20 PM, "Nicholas Zachariou" <nicholas at jlab.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> Thank you for the explanation. I do agree that that would be the correct
> way to do so if we found a systematic error (and not uncertainty). In that
> case we would need to shift our points to account for the systematic
> offset. In most cases (and in the analysis we have done for the E
> observable on K+Sigma-) the systematic studies yield uncertainties (i.e.
> the systematic effect of specific sources can produce higher or lower in
> magnitude observables). The same goes for the photon polarization. The 3.4%
> is a systematic uncertainty and not an error. This means that the true
> value of the photon polarization can vary from the nominal value by 3.4% in
> either direction. This effects our observable E directly in magnitude, so I
> think its more proper to include that in the total uncertainty by adding it
> to the statistical in quadrature. Maybe I am missing something and would
> love to discuss more on this during the meeting.
>
> Best regards,
> Nick
>
>
> On 8 Nov 2017, at 17:35, Dr. A.M. Sandorfi <sandorfi at jlab.org> wrote:
>
> Re: [G14_run] Systematic uncertainties on asymmetries - (Tsuneo's question
> to K Sigma analysis note)
> Nick,
>
> A systematic scale uncertainty represents a shift to the entire data set
> as a hole. For example, imagine you find out after publication that a
> polarization (beam or target) was to high by 5%. How do you correct that –
> you multiply every data point by 0.95. Essentially, that just changes the
> scale of the axes in a plot of the data. The point-to-point statistical
> fluctuations do not change. That is not the equivalent to increasing the
> size of the point-to-point fluctuations.
>
> Now there can be some components of the systematic uncertainty that change
> with kinematic bins, and these parts could be added in quadrature with
> statistical errors. But those do not usually dominate the total systematic
> error. For this reason, when it comes time to publish, point-to-point
> systematics and scale uncertainties should be clearly quoted separated – as
> we have done in our recent pi-p PRL.
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/7/17, 11:02 PM, "Nicholas Zachariou" <nicholas at jlab.org <x-msg:
> //22/nicholas at jlab.org> > wrote:
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> Can you elaborate why its not correct to add the systematic in quadrature
> with the statistical?
> I am not sure I understand why this "uses data that dont represent the
> experiment". Maybe we can talk more during the g14 meeting.
>
> Nick
> On Nov 7, 2017, at 22:22, "Dr. A.M. Sandorfi" <sandorfi at jlab.org <x-msg:
> //22/sandorfi at jlab.org> > wrote:
>
> Hi Eugene,
>
> Yes, your point is well taken - for those data points where the asymmetry
> is
> very close to zero. One has two choices: we could either give an overall
> fractional (%) uncertainty, while quoting the absolute value as an
> exception
> when the asymmetry vanishes, or just quote only an absolute uncertainty for
> all points.
>
> The trouble comes at the subsequent stage when the data is used by the
> various PWA groups. All PWA groups have their fitting routines set up to
> float the scale of a data set while including a chi^2 penalty that is
> weighted by a fractional systematic error. If we give them a systematic
> uncertainty that is absolute, they will combine it in quadrature with the
> statistical error to create an inflated point by point uncertainty, and set
> the fitting scale to 1. I can guarantee that this will happen and it is a
> completely incorrect way to use the data that doesn't represent the
> experiment. So it is better to use the first approach - quote the
> systematic
> uncertainty as a fractional (%) error, while explicitly noting the absolute
> value of the systematic uncertainty for those asymmetry points with nearly
> zero value. The later qualifying statement will probably be ignored in PWA
> analyses, but at least most of the data will have been included properly.
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> On 11/4/17, 11:37 PM, "Eugene Pasyuk" <pasyuk at jlab.org <x-msg:
> //22/pasyuk at jlab.org> > wrote:
>
>
> Any asymmetry can be anything between -1 and +1, 0 included. For any
> observable which may be equal to 0 relative uncertainty does not make
> sense.
> Only absolute uncertainty must be used.
> The second term in Nick's equation is equal to 0 if ObservableValue is
> always
> equal to 0 regardless of sigma_sys_relative. This is incorrect but good
> illustration why one must not use relative uncertainty for asymmetries.
>
> -Eugene
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Tsuneo Kageya" <kageya at jlab.org <x-msg://22/kageya@jlab.org> >
> To: "Nicholas Zachariou" <nicholas at jlab.org <x-msg://22/nicholas@jlab.org>
> >
> Cc: "g14 run" <g14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/g14_run@jlab.org> >
> Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 10:57:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [G14_run] G14_run Digest, Vol 74, Issue 3 (Tuneo's question
> to
> K Sigma analysis note)
>
>
> Nick,
>
> thank you for the response.
> I would like to know why the absolute is more appropriate.
> I will look forward the statements.
>
> Regards, Tsuneo Kageya.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nicholas Zachariou" <nicholas at jlab.org <x-msg:
> //22/nicholas at jlab.org> >
> To: "Tsuneo Kageya" <kageya at jlab.org <x-msg://22/kageya@jlab.org> >
> Cc: "g14 run" <g14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/g14_run@jlab.org> >
> Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 3:23:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [G14_run] G14_run Digest, Vol 74, Issue 3 (Tuneo's question
> to
> K
> Sigma analysis note)
>
> Hi Tsuneo,
>
> The absolute error is propagated directly to the total uncertainty
> (sigma_tot=sqrt(sigma_sys_absolute^2+(ObservableValue*sigma_sys_relative)^2
> +
> sigma_statistical^2).
>
> I can elaborate more if you like on why thats the case (why absolute are
> more
> appropriate in my case). I will include some statements in the note to
> reflect
> this.
>
> Let me know if you would like to discuss this more.
>
> Best regards,
> Nick
>
> On Nov 4, 2017, 19:12, at 19:12, Tsuneo Kageya <kageya at jlab.org <x-msg:
> //22/kageya at jlab.org> > wrote:
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> Sorry to be late to make a question.
> I have a question about the systematic error calculations.
>
> At page 35, on the table 4, you calculated the total absolute
> systematic error
> to be 0.10. How this is reflected into the total relative systematic
> error ?
> On the pi-p analysis, I think we calculated the systematic errors from
> cuts in
> the similar way and they are combined to the other errors (target and
> beam polarizations).
> Is this number 0.10 means 10 % or 0.1 % ?
>
> I may misunderstand this issue. Please let me know.
>
> Regards, Tsuneo Kageya.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "g14 run-request" <g14_run-request at jlab.org <x-msg:
> //22/g14_run-request at jlab.org> >
> To: "g14 run" <g14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/g14_run@jlab.org> >
> Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 12:00:03 PM
> Subject: G14_run Digest, Vol 74, Issue 3
>
> Send G14_run mailing list submissions to
> g14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/g14_run@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 <x-msg://22/g14_run-request@jlab.org>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> g14_run-owner at jlab.org <x-msg://22/g14_run-owner@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. Re: Updated Analysis Note (Reinhard Schumacher)
> 2. Re: Updated Analysis Note (Nicholas Zachariou)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 22:19:24 -0400
> From: Reinhard Schumacher <schumacher at cmu.edu <x-msg:
> //22/schumacher at cmu.edu> >
> To: g14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/g14_run@jlab.org>
> Subject: Re: [G14_run] Updated Analysis Note
> Message-ID: <a5780718-56ac-1dc0-44e8-6b991dbf849b at cmu.edu <x-msg:
> //22/a5780718-56ac-1dc0-44e8-6b991dbf849b at cmu.edu> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> Indeed, noticeably improved.?? I recommend that you put the horizontal
> error bars on Figs.? 29 - 32, too.? They are just as important there
> since the model curves can vary a lot across one bin.
>
> Reinhard
>
>
> On 11/3/2017 7:13 PM, Nicholas Zachariou wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am attaching the updated note that incorporates and addresses all
>
> comments made. I have noticed that I have previously forgotten to
> include the systematic uncertainty associated with the
> photon-selection, and is now estimated and included.
>
> I would like to thank again Shumacher for his time and valuable
>
> insight, and everybody for the comments and feedback. If there is no
> other comments, I will be submitting the note early next week.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> G14_run mailing list
> G14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/G14_run@jlab.org>
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------
>
> Reinhard Schumacher Department of Physics, 5000 Forbes Ave.
> Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, U.S.A.
> phone: 412-268-5177 <(412)%20268-5177> web:
> www-meg.phys.cmu.edu/~schumach <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www-2Dmeg.phys.cmu.edu_-7Eschumach&d=DwIFaQ&c=lz9TcOasaINaaC3U7FbMev2lsutwpI4--09aP8Lu18s&r=S2ZLWreG80lNvNTOLF-ZWA&m=-6DaNVZ9_JTRT9yuBzZIwbISHt-42o_TByX1vXSHu_k&s=iGUeshHNnoh3D9Y3TCkgA4TzNjJPqaxuYTEQZN-pew0&e= > <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www-2Dmeg.phys.cmu.edu_-7Eschumach&d=DwIFaQ&c=lz9TcOasaINaaC3U7FbMev2lsutwpI4--09aP8Lu18s&r=S2ZLWreG80lNvNTOLF-ZWA&m=-6DaNVZ9_JTRT9yuBzZIwbISHt-42o_TByX1vXSHu_k&s=iGUeshHNnoh3D9Y3TCkgA4TzNjJPqaxuYTEQZN-pew0&e= >
> ------------------------------
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/g14_run/attachments/> 20171103/651ca313/at
> tachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2017 07:10:14 +0000
> From: Nicholas Zachariou <nicholas at jlab.org <x-msg://22/nicholas@jlab.org>
> >
> To: Reinhard Schumacher <schumacher at cmu.edu <x-msg:
> //22/schumacher at cmu.edu> >
> Cc: G14 Run <g14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/g14_run@jlab.org> >
> Subject: Re: [G14_run] Updated Analysis Note
> Message-ID: <d21ed42f-6b13-482d-8c8b-4ea087ad31e1 at jlab.org <x-msg:
> //22/d21ed42f-6b13-482d-8c8b-4ea087ad31e1 at jlab.org> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Reinhard,
>
> The figures looked a bit busy when I did that (too many lines) and
> thats why i left the x-uncertainties out in those, but its takes me 2
> minutes to incorborate them. I think that will be more relevant when we
> decide exactly how to present our results in the publication.
>
> In the meantime I was wondering if its OK with the group to share our
> preliminary results with the theorists and see if we can get any
> insights from them.
>
> Best regards,
> Nick
>
>
> On Nov 4, 2017, 02:19, at 02:19, Reinhard Schumacher
> <schumacher at cmu.edu <x-msg://22/schumacher@cmu.edu> > wrote:
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> Indeed, noticeably improved.?? I recommend that you put the horizontal
>
>
> error bars on Figs.? 29 - 32, too.? They are just as important there
> since the model curves can vary a lot across one bin.
>
> Reinhard
>
>
> On 11/3/2017 7:13 PM, Nicholas Zachariou wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I am attaching the updated note that incorporates and addresses all
> comments made. I have noticed that I have previously forgotten to
> include the systematic uncertainty associated with the
> photon-selection, and is now estimated and included.
> I would like to thank again Shumacher for his time and valuable
> insight, and everybody for the comments and feedback. If there is no
> other comments, I will be submitting the note early next week.
>
> Best regards,
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> G14_run mailing list
> G14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/G14_run@jlab.org>
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run
>
> --
> ------------------------------
>
> Reinhard Schumacher Department of Physics, 5000 Forbes Ave.
> Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, U.S.A.
> phone: 412-268-5177 <(412)%20268-5177> web:
> www-meg.phys.cmu.edu/~schumach <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www-2Dmeg.phys.cmu.edu_-7Eschumach&d=DwIFaQ&c=lz9TcOasaINaaC3U7FbMev2lsutwpI4--09aP8Lu18s&r=S2ZLWreG80lNvNTOLF-ZWA&m=-6DaNVZ9_JTRT9yuBzZIwbISHt-42o_TByX1vXSHu_k&s=iGUeshHNnoh3D9Y3TCkgA4TzNjJPqaxuYTEQZN-pew0&e= > <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www-2Dmeg.phys.cmu.edu_-7Eschumach&d=DwIFaQ&c=lz9TcOasaINaaC3U7FbMev2lsutwpI4--09aP8Lu18s&r=S2ZLWreG80lNvNTOLF-ZWA&m=-6DaNVZ9_JTRT9yuBzZIwbISHt-42o_TByX1vXSHu_k&s=iGUeshHNnoh3D9Y3TCkgA4TzNjJPqaxuYTEQZN-pew0&e= >
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> G14_run mailing list
> G14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/G14_run@jlab.org>
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/g14_run/attachments/> 20171104/14965baf/at
> tachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ------------------------------
>
> G14_run mailing list
> G14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/G14_run@jlab.org>
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> End of G14_run Digest, Vol 74, Issue 3
> **************************************
> ------------------------------
>
> G14_run mailing list
> G14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/G14_run@jlab.org>
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run
>
> ------------------------------
>
> G14_run mailing list
> G14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/G14_run@jlab.org>
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run
>
> ------------------------------
>
> G14_run mailing list
> G14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/G14_run@jlab.org>
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> G14_run mailing list
> G14_run at jlab.org <x-msg://22/G14_run@jlab.org>
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> G14_run mailing list
> G14_run at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/g14_run/attachments/20171108/4d217bea/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the G14_run
mailing list