<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css" style="">
<!--
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
</style>
<div dir="ltr">
<div id="x_divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">
<p>5x more WABs are done using the <font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt">10.01.p03</span></font> version:<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><span>/mss/hallb/hps/production/pass6/recon/wab/1pt05/wabv2_10to1_4062dz_*</span><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div id="x_Signature">
<div id="x_divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">
<p>where "4062" refers to the updated target thickness (in nm).</p>
<p>So to clarify, the original 100 wabv2 files in that directory use SLIC v<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt">10.01.p02, </span></font><span>(w/ original thickness)</span>, and files 101-500
<span>(as labelled above)</span> use <font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt">10.01.p03</span>
</font><span><span>and the new thickness. <br>
</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>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.</span></span><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> Hps-analysis <hps-analysis-bounces@jlab.org> on behalf of Sho Uemura <meeg@slac.stanford.edu><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 4, 2016 10:50:00 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Stepan Stepanyan<br>
<b>Cc:</b> hps-analysis@jlab.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Hps-analysis] New WABs</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">I think running WABs is pretty cheap ("10x" just matches the amount of
<br>
wabv1 we had), and that is one of the validation checks we need.<br>
<br>
But yes, before we use the new SLIC for any big production we need to <br>
check everything.<br>
<br>
On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, Stepan Stepanyan wrote:<br>
<br>
> May be before running x10 of WAB we should make some small amount of <br>
> simulations to validate it.<br>
><br>
> On 8/4/16 10:26 AM, Sho Uemura wrote:<br>
>> New SLIC is 10.01.p03. I don't know what validation has been done or is <br>
>> planned to make sure none of the physics we care about has changed.<br>
>> <br>
>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, Maurik Holtrop wrote:<br>
>> <br>
>>> Has the version of GEANT4 changed between the old and new SLIC?<br>
>>> <br>
>>> If it has, then I think there is a big reason to have enough data with <br>
>>> both versions to make a meaningful comparison.<br>
>>> We can discuss if this would also be needed as well if only the target <br>
>>> thickness changed. I would think probably not?<br>
>>> <br>
>>> - Maurik<br>
>>> <br>
>>>> On Aug 4, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Bradley T Yale <btu29@wildcats.unh.edu> <br>
>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Sure.<br>
>>>> The old SLIC is still around, but it should be up-to-date with this one <br>
>>>> though.<br>
>>>> I think it was just future stability that led to moving away from the <br>
>>>> HEAD revision (hopefully Jeremy can comment).<br>
>>>> From: Sho Uemura <meeg@slac.stanford.edu><br>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 1:02:54 AM<br>
>>>> To: Bradley T Yale<br>
>>>> Cc: hps-analysis@jlab.org; Takashi Maruyama<br>
>>>> Subject: Re: New WABs<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Is it possible to do this with both the old and new SLIC?<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, Bradley T Yale wrote:<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>>> It's no problem.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> I'll go ahead and make them with the updated target thickness (0.0004062 <br>
>>>>> vs. 0.0004375 cm).<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> ________________________________<br>
>>>>> From: Sho Uemura <meeg@slac.stanford.edu><br>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 8:24:02 PM<br>
>>>>> To: Bradley T Yale<br>
>>>>> Cc: hps-analysis@jlab.org; Takashi Maruyama<br>
>>>>> Subject: Re: New WABs<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> The events look fine. Normalization hasn't changed much (Rafo's a and b<br>
>>>>> factors are about the same). Distribution shapes don't look <br>
>>>>> significantly<br>
>>>>> different.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> Would be good to have a factor of 10 more of the pure WABs, if it's <br>
>>>>> easy.<br>
>>>>> I don't expect it to tell us anything new but it will make things <br>
>>>>> clearer.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, Bradley T Yale wrote:<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> Unweighted WAB events using the v2 generator have finished recon. <br>
>>>>>> Everything that contains them are labelled 'wabv2':<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> Pure WAB:<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> /mss/hallb/hps/production/pass6/recon/wab/1pt05/wabv2_10to1_HPS-EngRun2015-Nominal-v4-4-fieldmap_3.8-fix_pairs1_*
<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> WAB with background:<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> /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_*
<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> The ones with background also contain tritrig without an ESum generator <br>
>>>>>> cut, to eliminate possible errors from it.<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> Once Takashi finishes tweaking the egs5 procedure to eliminate WAB <br>
>>>>>> double-counting, I'll rerun everything along with an updated target <br>
>>>>>> thickness as well, probably in a fresh directory.<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> -Bradley<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> Hps-analysis mailing list<br>
>>>> Hps-analysis@jlab.org<br>
>>>> <a href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis</a><br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Hps-analysis mailing list<br>
>> Hps-analysis@jlab.org<br>
>> <a href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Hps-analysis mailing list<br>
> Hps-analysis@jlab.org<br>
> <a href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis</a><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Hps-analysis mailing list<br>
Hps-analysis@jlab.org<br>
<a href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hps-analysis</a><br>
</div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>