<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<font size="+1"><tt>Hi Sean,<br>
thanks for the comments. I implemented most of them and updated
the talk.<br>
I agree with your assessments in particular 15 and 33 where I
was clearly<br>
unclear ;-)<br>
<br>
with regards to the 10-20% I am not sure that is an extrema, I
fear not. I will point<br>
out though that this number has the statistics of 1 out of 1. <br>
<br>
I uploaded a new version that hopefully addresses most of you
concerns.<br>
<br>
Beni <br>
</tt></font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/25/20 11:04 PM, Sean Dobbs wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAEAoKm6ui05FCn2MSRfA00Hk7TA-Hpd6taHcM=gO4PehyEod8w@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi Beni,
Sorry for sending this so late, but here are some additional thoughts
on your slide:
Title: The more we talk about this, the more I think that "uniqueness
tracking" is really misleading, and we should give this a more
accurate title, and only refer to uniqueness tracking when it comes up
in context. I think you describe the problem essentially as "event
counting", which I think is a better description of the problem, but
one could call this "Combinatorics" as well.
But in general my perspective is that this is really a counting
problem, hence inherently statistical. If we solve it on the
individual event basis, then this is fine, but not necessary.
Slide 2: Maybe at the beginning you should say that we are starting
out trying to discuss the counting problem for cross section
measurements, will move onto Dalitz/etc. examples later on.
Slide 15: There are a couple "What to do then?"s. I think you should
make it a little more clear that the answers to these questions will
be outputs from our group's discussions. But it might be good to pull
a couple example plots from your other presentation - even if we
haven't 100% decided what to do, I think having some concrete examples
helps move the discussion forward.
Honestly, I think that expanding on the plots that you have right now,
and showing the invariant mass as a function of the number of showers
in the event is really valuable for deciding what to do - this is
clearly future work, but you can, for example, show the mass
distribution with only 6 photons and with more than 6 photons.
Slide 33: It's not clear to me that your first case of over-counting
is correct. In principle it can be true for the measured 4-vectors,
but maybe not for the kinematically fit 4-vectors. Also, even though
this discussion puts it aside, isn't it the case that we remove by
accidental subtracting, anyway?
Slide 35: I think this 10-20% is a pretty extreme case and we should say so...
Again, I think that these will give some good discussion, and we
should move towards working out some examples more fully.
Cheers,
Sean
_______________________________________________
Halld-unique mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Halld-unique@jlab.org">Halld-unique@jlab.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-unique">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-unique</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>