[G8b_run] analysis notes

[Eugene Pasyuk]

I'll be calling in from the counting room

-Eugene

On 2/14/12 15:44 , Ken Livingston wrote:
> Hi All,
> Let's have a meeting tomorrow to discuss progress on analysis notes.
> I've asked Dave Ireland to attend (as hadron spec chair) to discuss
> options for merging / managing analysis reviews.
>
> I'll put up a page for the meeting tomorrow in the usual place.
>
> Cheers,
> Ken
>
>
> On 02/02/2012 10:33 AM, Ken Livingston wrote:
>> 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
>>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> G8b_run mailing list
>> G8b_run at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g8b_run
> _______________________________________________
> G8b_run mailing list
> G8b_run at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g8b_run