[G8b_run] analysis notes

Wed Feb 15 09:49:39 EST 2012

I'll call in as a leader from the counting room. Everyone else just dial 
participant code as usual.

-Eugene

On 2/15/12 8:57 , Ken Livingston wrote:
> ... is there someone around to initiate the call from the Jlab end?
>
>
> On 02/14/2012 08:46 PM, Eugene Pasyuk wrote:
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> G8b_run mailing list
>> G8b_run at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g8b_run
>