[Hps-analysis] New WABs

[Sho Uemura]

I think running WABs is pretty cheap ("10x" just matches the amount of 
wabv1 we had), and that is one of the validation checks we need.

But yes, before we use the new SLIC for any big production we need to 
check everything.

On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, Stepan Stepanyan wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hps-analysis mailing list
> Hps-analysis at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis
>