<html><head></head><body><div dir="auto">Hi Tsuneo,<br><br></div>
<div dir="auto">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).<br><br></div>
<div dir="auto">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.<br><br></div>
<div dir="auto">Let me know if you would like to discuss this more.<br><br></div>
<div dir="auto">Best regards,<br></div>
<div dir="auto">Nick </div>
<div class="gmail_quote" >On Nov 4, 2017, at 19:12, Tsuneo Kageya <<a href="mailto:kageya@jlab.org" target="_blank">kageya@jlab.org</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="blue">Hi Nick,<br><br> Sorry to be late to make a question.<br> I have a question about the systematic error calculations.<br><br> At page 35, on the table 4, you calculated the total absolute systematic error<br>to be 0.10. How this is reflected into the total relative systematic error ?<br>On the pi-p analysis, I think we calculated the systematic errors from cuts in<br>the similar way and they are combined to the other errors (target and beam polarizations).<br>Is this number 0.10 means 10 % or 0.1 % ?<br><br> I may misunderstand this issue. Please let me know.<br><br> Regards, Tsuneo Kageya.<br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: "g14 run-request" <g14_run-request@jlab.org><br>To: "g14 run" <g14_run@jlab.org><br>Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 12:00:03 PM<br>Subject: G14_run Digest, Vol 74, Issue 3<br><br>Send G14_run mailing list submissions to<br> g14_run@jlab.org<br><br>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br> <a href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run</a><br>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br> g14_run-request@jlab.org<br><br>You can reach the person managing the list at<br> g14_run-owner@jlab.org<br><br>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>than "Re: Contents of G14_run digest..."<br><br><br>Today's Topics:<br><br> 1. Re: Updated Analysis Note (Reinhard Schumacher)<br> 2. Re: Updated Analysis Note (Nicholas Zachariou)<br><br><br><hr><br><br>Message: 1<br>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 22:19:24 -0400<br>From: Reinhard Schumacher <schumacher@cmu.edu><br>To: g14_run@jlab.org<br>Subject: Re: [G14_run] Updated Analysis Note<br>Message-ID: <a5780718-56ac-1dc0-44e8-6b991dbf849b@cmu.edu><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"<br><br>Hi Nick,<br><br>Indeed, noticeably improved.?? I recommend that you put the horizontal <br>error bars on Figs.? 29 - 32, too.? They are just as important there <br>since the model curves can vary a lot across one bin.<br><br>Reinhard<br><br><br>On 11/3/2017 7:13 PM, Nicholas Zachariou wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> Dear all,<br><br> 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.<br> 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.<br><br> Best regards,<br> Nick<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><hr><br> G14_run mailing list<br> G14_run@jlab.org<br> <a href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g14_run</a><br></blockquote></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>