[Hps-analysis] New WABs

[Bradley T Yale]

Up until yesterday.

________________________________
From: Sho Uemura <meeg at slac.stanford.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 1:21:59 PM
To: Bradley T Yale
Cc: Stepan Stepanyan; hps-analysis at jlab.org
Subject: Re: [Hps-analysis] New WABs

I'm out of touch - how long have we been using 10.01.p02?

On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, Bradley T Yale wrote:

> 5x more WABs are done using the 10.01.p03 version:
>
>
> /mss/hallb/hps/production/pass6/recon/wab/1pt05/wabv2_10to1_4062dz_*
>
>
> where "4062" refers to the updated target thickness (in nm).
>
> So to clarify, the original 100 wabv2 files in that directory use SLIC v10.01.p02, (w/ original thickness), and files 101-500 (as labelled above) use 10.01.p03 and the new thickness.
>
> The rest of the new ones (501-1000) are in progress, and I can match these using the old version + new target thickness as well. WABs are pretty cheap, as suggested.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hps-analysis <hps-analysis-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Sho Uemura <meeg at slac.stanford.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 10:50:00 AM
> To: Stepan Stepanyan
> Cc: hps-analysis at jlab.org
> Subject: Re: [Hps-analysis] New WABs
>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Hps-analysis mailing list
> Hps-analysis at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/hps-analysis/attachments/20160804/12d633e4/attachment-0001.html>