[Hps-analysis] skims

[Sebouh Paul]

Sorry, I should have clarified:  these are for 2016 pass1.  Thanks Nathan.

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Nathan Baltzell <baltzell at jlab.org> wrote:

> Hi Sebouh,
>
> I think you are talking about 2016's pass1?  Yes, useful and loose
> skims with high reduction are fine.  What you have looks good.
>
> -Nathan
>
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2016, at 8:08 PM, Sebouh Paul <sebouh.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I discussed with Rafo and Nathan about the skim criteria.  Here's a very
> simple minimalist set of skim criteria:
> >
> > Pulser
> > Single0
> > V0:  Pair1 trigger && size(UnconstrainedV0Candidates)>0
> > Single1  (Only requirement is the single1 trigger.  This takes the place
> of the fee skim)
> > Moller:  Pair0 trigger && size(TargetConstrainedMollerCandidates)>0
> >
> >
> > I calculated the relative sizes of these skims to the original file for
> one file, and these are the results:
> >
> > Pulser:             2.5%
> > S0:                   2.1%
> > V0:                   6.3%
> > S1:                   5.5%
> > Moller:             3.4%
> >
> > Thoughts anyone?
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20161013/b3f2a080/attachment.html>