Hi Volker,<br><br> Maybe yes. Steve presented results from GENIE for the first time at the last Nuclear Physics Working Group meeting. He showed comparisons with the GENEV event generator, GENIE, and the EG2 data. The GENIE results were clearly closer to the data. The attached plot shows one of the comparisons from Steve's talk of the single, charged pion production. The GENEV simulation (blue, dashed histogram) has too many events at low Q2 and not enough at higher Q2 compared to the data (solid, blue and red histograms). The GENIE simulation (red, dashed histogram) does much better. Steve knows the people that have written the code and the version with the nuclear calculations is not quite ready for distribution (Steve will correct me if I'm wrong). The changes to GENIE are still in an early stage, but the results are encouraging. I was planning on encouraging this software development as it matures. Let me know what you think.<br>
<br>Jerry<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:37 AM, burkert <<a href="mailto:burkert@jlab.org">burkert@jlab.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote">
Jerry et al.,<br>
Might GENIE be also used as a suitable event generator for the CLAS physics analyses?<br>
<br>
Volker<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Jerry Gilfoyle wrote: be a good evet generators for our own analyises with CLAS?<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"><div><div></div><div class="h5">
Hi Folks,<br>
<br>
Steve Manly is giving an update to one of the neutrino working groups that includes some of his recent simulation results and spectra from EG2. I have attached his talk. Please let me and him know if there are changes needed. My comments are below.<br>
<br>
Jerry<br>
<br>
----<br>
<br>
Comments from me:<br>
<br>
The similarity of the GENIE and CLAS results is very interesting!<br>
<br>
1. You should include a few more details on the EG2 run like the number of electron events, target configuration (thicknesses, used simultaneous multiple targets), beam energy, Q2 range (it's in the plots later on, but make it explicit).<br>
<br>
2. For the magnetic field map on page 4, can you state the value of position along the beam line?<br>
<br>
3. For the plots on page 6, you need some explanatory text. Should say these plots are for a proton target so they are not(?) from EG2.<br>
<br>
4. For the plots on pages 8-10, the GENIE events were presumably run through GSIM which should be stated explicitly. It looks like the integrals of the different spectra from CLAS and GENIE are the same. How did you get this result (scale the histograms?, tune the GENIE inputs?)? This should be stated.<br>
<br>
Looks good otherwise.<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Dr. Gerard P. Gilfoyle<br>
Physics Department University of Richmond, VA 23173 USA<br></div></div>
e-mail: <a href="mailto:ggilfoyl@richmond.edu">ggilfoyl@richmond.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ggilfoyl@richmond.edu">ggilfoyl@richmond.edu</a>><div class="im"><br>
phone: 804-289-8255<br>
fax: 804-484-1542<br></div>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
This body part will be downloaded on demand.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Dr. Gerard P. Gilfoyle<br>Physics Department <br>University of Richmond, VA 23173 USA <br>e-mail: <a href="mailto:ggilfoyl@richmond.edu">ggilfoyl@richmond.edu</a><br>
phone: 804-289-8255<br>fax: 804-484-1542<br>