[G8b_run] analysis notes

[Ken Livingston]

Hi All,
There are some minutes from yesteday's call at
https://clasweb.jlab.org/rungroups/g8/wiki/index.php/Feb_01,_2012

I'll discuss the possibilities for combined reviews / analyses  with 
Dave Ireland as soon as possible.

In the meantime, we should look at Volkers' draft analysis note and have 
comments ready. Its at:
http://hadron.physics.fsu.edu/~crede/FILES/CHanrettyThesis.pdf

I suggest that we add comments to this wiki page before the next meeting.
https://clasweb.jlab.org/rungroups/g8/wiki/index.php/Polarization_observables_in_two_pion_production

Regards,
Ken



On 01/27/2012 10:21 PM, Michael Dugger wrote:
> Volker,
>
> Yes.
>
> Using your criteria, I think that 4% would be a good estimate for the
> systematic uncertainty associated with the consistency of the
> polarization.
>
> Take care,
> Michael
>
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Volker Crede wrote:
>
>> Dear Michael,
>>
>> Thanks for the update. I have already implemented your new numbers and submitted a few jobs on our cluster.
>>
>> Neglecting the 2.1 GeV dataset and comparing the numbers in your table (Slide 3), would you agree that the data can still be made self-consistent to within 4%? This is the largest number I see in your table (for the 1.7 (auto) - 1.9 overlap region, PARA). My feeling is that your new results are even somewhat better than the previous ones. Can we conclude that 4% is a good estimate for the systematic error associated with the degree of polarization provided that:
>>
>> 1) The latest polarization tables have been used.
>>
>> 2) The polarization corrections (based on the overlap studies) have been applied.
>>
>> 3) The event-based energy cut has been applied:  event edge - 200 MeV<  E(gamma)<  event edge.
>>
>> Best wishes and thanks again
>>
>>       Volker
>>
>> PS: I am sending this from my gmail account, so it may not go to the g8b run group. FSU has a huge email problem at the moment and JLab regularly rejects emails from @fsu.edu.
>>
>>
>> On Jan 27, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Michael Dugger wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have made some slight changes to the polarization modification. Volker
>>> and Ken helped me determine that there was an inconsistency in how I was
>>> determining which polarization look-up table to use for each event. The
>>> inconsistency led to the coherent edge being wrong by up to 4 MeV (~ half
>>> an eCounter).
>>>
>>> The results are very similar to what I had shown previously. A pdf showing
>>> a comparison of the new results to the old ones can be found at
>>> http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/g8b/ASU/polCorrectionV3.pdf
>>> where the new results are in blue.
>>>
>>> Note: There is one difference in results worth mentioning. I no longer see
>>> the need to remove eCounters>  299 (within the overlap region) for the 1.9
>>> GeV data set :)
>>>
>>> To implement the new modification, one only needs to replace the ldPar
>>> values with the those given at the bottom of this email (also listed on
>>> the pdf).
>>>
>>> I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> New ldPar values:
>>>
>>> 1.3 manual
>>> ldPar(1) = 1.007560
>>> ldPar(2) =-0.5872520E-02
>>> ldPar(4) = 1.012520
>>> ldPar(5) =-0.6416970E-02
>>>
>>> 1.5 manual
>>> ldPar(1) = 1.012790
>>> ldPar(2) =-0.4507690E-02
>>> ldPar(4) = 1.002800
>>> ldPar(5) =-0.1880110E-02
>>>
>>> 1.7 manual
>>> ldPar(1) = 0.9893110
>>> ldPar(2) =-0.1880110E-02
>>> ldPar(4) = 0.9893210
>>> ldPar(5) =-0.2127790E-02
>>>
>>> 1.7 auto
>>> ldPar(1) = 0.9962880
>>> ldPar(2) =-0.1159220E-02
>>> ldPar(4) = 1.030480
>>> ldPar(5) =-0.1110110E-01
>>>
>>> 1.9 auto
>>> ldPar(1) = 1.012930
>>> ldPar(2) =-0.2772200E-02
>>> ldPar(4) = 0.9998200
>>> ldPar(5) =-0.1616160E-02
>>>
>>> 2.1 manual
>>> ldPar(1) = 0.9968230
>>> ldPar(2) =-0.2214870E-01
>>> ldPar(4) = 1.007930
>>> ldPar(5) =-0.7647950E-02
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> G8b_run mailing list
>>> G8b_run at jlab.org
>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g8b_run
>>>
>>
>>