[Hps-analysis] New WABs

[Stepan Stepanyan]

May be before running x10 of WAB we should make some small amount of 
simulations to validate it.

On 8/4/16 10:26 AM, Sho Uemura wrote:
> New SLIC is 10.01.p03. I don't know what validation has been done or 
> is planned to make sure none of the physics we care about has changed.
>
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, Maurik Holtrop wrote:
>
>> Has the version of GEANT4 changed between the old and new SLIC?
>>
>> If it has, then I think there is a big reason to have enough data 
>> with both versions to make a meaningful comparison.
>> We can discuss if this would also be needed as well if only the 
>> target thickness changed. I would think probably not?
>>
>> - Maurik
>>
>>> On Aug 4, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Bradley T Yale <btu29 at wildcats.unh.edu> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sure.
>>> The old SLIC is still around, but it should be up-to-date with this 
>>> one though.
>>> I think it was just future stability that led to moving away from 
>>> the HEAD revision (hopefully Jeremy can comment).
>>> From: Sho Uemura <meeg at slac.stanford.edu>
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 1:02:54 AM
>>> To: Bradley T Yale
>>> Cc: hps-analysis at jlab.org; Takashi Maruyama
>>> Subject: Re: New WABs
>>>
>>> Is it possible to do this with both the old and new SLIC?
>>>
>>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, Bradley T Yale wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's no problem.
>>>>
>>>> I'll go ahead and make them with the updated target thickness 
>>>> (0.0004062 vs. 0.0004375 cm).
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Sho Uemura <meeg at slac.stanford.edu>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 8:24:02 PM
>>>> To: Bradley T Yale
>>>> Cc: hps-analysis at jlab.org; Takashi Maruyama
>>>> Subject: Re: New WABs
>>>>
>>>> The events look fine. Normalization hasn't changed much (Rafo's a 
>>>> and b
>>>> factors are about the same). Distribution shapes don't look 
>>>> significantly
>>>> different.
>>>>
>>>> Would be good to have a factor of 10 more of the pure WABs, if it's 
>>>> easy.
>>>> I don't expect it to tell us anything new but it will make things 
>>>> clearer.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, Bradley T Yale wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Unweighted WAB events using the v2 generator have finished recon. 
>>>>> Everything that contains them are labelled 'wabv2':
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pure WAB:
>>>>>
>>>>> /mss/hallb/hps/production/pass6/recon/wab/1pt05/wabv2_10to1_HPS-EngRun2015-Nominal-v4-4-fieldmap_3.8-fix_pairs1_* 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WAB with background:
>>>>>
>>>>> /mss/hallb/hps/production/pass6/recon/tritrig-wab-beam-tri/1pt05/tritrigv1_NOSUMCUT-wabv2-egsv3-triv2-g4v1_HPS-EngRun2015-Nominal-v4-4-fieldmap_3.8-fix_pairs1_* 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The ones with background also contain tritrig without an ESum 
>>>>> generator cut, to eliminate possible errors from it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once Takashi finishes tweaking the egs5 procedure to eliminate WAB 
>>>>> double-counting, I'll rerun everything along with an updated 
>>>>> target thickness as well, probably in a fresh directory.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Bradley
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Hps-analysis mailing list
>>> Hps-analysis at jlab.org
>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Hps-analysis mailing list
> Hps-analysis at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis