<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Good evening Sebastian,</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
I don't think that it is particularly useful to emphasize the fact that the individual experiments add up to "a total of 916 PAC days worth of new data". This notion of one experiment = one data set is common at very small facilities and is historically embedded
in the JLab user community. However, I don't think that there was ever a chance to get ~ 1000 PAC days awarded for CLAS12 running with the polarized target. What do you mean with "Including 120 PAC days on NH3 just for pDVCS"? To me, these bullet points are
misleading. In this jeopardy process you are defending the remaining 40 PAC days to finish a program of approved 120 PAC days.</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
I am happy to show the conditional run schedule in my presentation on Monday. I am not sure if the PAC really appreciates a discussion on the beam-time scheduling by the proponents.</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
On page 20, you specify "• 40 PAC days on NH3 and ND3". How is this distributed? The reader is also asking for clarifying the ND3-NH3 split. I don't fully understand the following bullet point "•If run in conjunction with RG-G: Common auxiliary targets and
systematic measurements shared (C, CH2, CD2, 4He, Empty)". Do you mean that the auxiliary target measurements are only important when running in conjunction with RG-G? How many PAC days are needed on this for RG-C? Personally, I think that the need for systematic
measurements to complete the program is more convincing that the need for < 20 PAC days for NH3 and < 20 PAC days for ND3. </div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
On page 21, the highlighted necessity of multi-dimensional binning has - in my view - not been substantiated in this presentation. I get the point on "improved systematics".</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Best, </div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Patrick</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<hr style="display: inline-block; width: 98%;">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>From:</b> Rgc <rgc-bounces@jlab.org> on behalf of Sebastian Kuhn via Rgc <rgc@jlab.org><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 2, 2024 09:37<br>
<b>To:</b> Silvia Niccolai <silvia@jlab.org><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Kuhn, Sebastian E. via Rgc <rgc@jlab.org>; rgc_analysis@jlab.org <rgc_analysis@jlab.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Rgc] RGC-analysis meeting tomorrow</span>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>Dear fellow jeopardy defenders,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>as we discussed today, I would appreciate updated slides (either for the backup or for the main presentation) on your favorite channels, in particular demonstrating how MORE STATISTICS (e.g., a factor of 2 in FoM for D + FT, compared to the FULL statistics
already in hand) would make a more statistically compelling statement (or allow more binning or…) for an ultimate publication. I posted the entire presentation as it is right now at</div>
<table style="direction: ltr; background-color: rgb(229, 230, 233); width: 300px; table-layout: fixed; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0px; box-sizing: border-box;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="direction: ltr;">
<table style="direction: ltr; background-color: rgb(229, 230, 233); width: 300px; table-layout: fixed; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0px; box-sizing: border-box;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="direction: ltr; padding-top: 8px; padding-bottom: 8px;">
<div style="margin: 0px 16px; max-width: 100%;">
<div style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; font-family: -apple-system, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.847);">
<a href="https://ww2.odu.edu/~skuhn/NucPhys/RGC_PAC52Jeopardy_clean.pptx" style="text-decoration: none;" data-auth="NotApplicable" id="OWA3f2b4a26-0d52-52fa-69dd-b9e352830de4" class="OWAAutoLink">ww2.odu.edu</a></div>
</div>
</td>
<td style="direction: ltr; padding-right: 12px; width: 32px;"><span style="font-family: -apple-system, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><a href="https://ww2.odu.edu/~skuhn/NucPhys/RGC_PAC52Jeopardy_clean.pptx" data-auth="NotApplicable" id="OWA93a3d31a-dbb0-1701-7cd6-e423b8338c2b" class="OWAAutoLink"><img style="width: 32px; height: 32px; display: inline-block;" width="32" height="32" data-outlook-trace="F:1|T:1" src="cid:9b406f51-da5d-44eb-ab86-e222b4922948"></a></span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div>- feel free to extract single slides and send me those back (in a new Powerpoint file), or just send me figures and text and tell me where to put those on the presentation (please explain your proposed changes in your email).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I also am still asking for general comments, suggestions and imrpovements, as well as your proposed response to our reader’s report:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Begin forwarded message:</div>
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</span>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-family: -webkit-system-font, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<b>From: </b>Krešimir Kumerički <<a href="mailto:kkumer@phy.hr" id="OWAd9ad987d-312b-c138-f06d-df7ac09e5419" class="OWAAutoLink">kkumer@phy.hr</a>></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-family: -webkit-system-font, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<b>Subject: Comments on J12-24-RunGroupC</b></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-family: -webkit-system-font, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<b>Date: </b>June 27, 2024 at 6:44:20 AM EDT</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-family: -webkit-system-font, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<b>To: </b>"Kuhn, Sebastian E." <<a href="mailto:skuhn@odu.edu" id="OWA52809aba-18de-b42e-e890-00fdc5dd6505" class="OWAAutoLink">skuhn@odu.edu</a>></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-family: -webkit-system-font, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<b>Cc: </b>"Dr. Markus Diehl" <<a href="mailto:markus.diehl@desy.de" id="OWA2838f587-76d6-2730-a4ec-ceb9aca74606" class="OWAAutoLink">markus.diehl@desy.de</a>>, "Ilieva, Yordanka" <<a href="mailto:ILIEVA@sc.edu" id="OWA2564580a-aaef-444e-1b26-66f855f63775" class="OWAAutoLink">ILIEVA@sc.edu</a>></div>
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</span>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">EXTERNAL to ODU: This email is not from an ODU account. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.<br>
<br>
Dear Sebastian,<br>
<br>
I am a member of the PAC52 assigned to do a first reading<br>
of Run Group C Jeopardy update,<br>
(for which you are the contact person),<br>
<br>
<br>
Since this run group comprises some well-established<br>
and thoroughly reviewed experiments I don't have many<br>
scientific questions.<br>
<br>
Still, PAC has to address some points during Jeopardy review,<br>
and it would be helpful if you had some comments on the following:<br>
<br>
1. Jeopardy instructions say that "If the experiment has already received a<br>
portion of its allocated beam time, the spokespersons should present the status<br>
of the analysis of the existing data and the projected results for the final<br>
complete data set. The goal is to show the physics impact of the beam time<br>
requested in the jeopardy update."<br>
<br>
I notice that update document focuses on the preliminary results from the<br>
already recorded data (actually small part of it), and I don't see any<br>
projections for the complete data set. This would be singularly<br>
helpful to have, but I certainly understand that this<br>
means a lot of work and likely cannot be produced for the PAC meeting. In that<br>
case, PAC will work with what we have.<br>
<br>
2. Is there any change in the status of the collaboration in terms of<br>
institutes, committed staff, and prospective students that could<br>
impact the feasibility of performing and analyzing proposed measurements?<br>
<br>
<br>
3. Finally, I do have one "scientific" question. TAC report says that<br>
your APOLLO target "has been operating with great success". On the<br>
other hand, you mention problems with pre-irradiation of this target<br>
and consequently the sub-optimal polarization in the first part of<br>
your run, so the remaining 1/3 of the originally requested 120 PAC<br>
days, if approved, would result in more than 1/3 of the additional<br>
statistics. Could this improvement (or previous degradation) be somehow<br>
roughly quantified in terms of some effective PAC days or related quantifier?<br>
<br>
Also, when you write in the third-to-last sentence of the report<br>
"... mostly due to (deuterated) ammonia samples ..." do you mean that<br>
measurements with ND3 were more affected by the pre-irradiation problem<br>
than those with NH3, or is the problem ND3-NH3 symmetric? Because if it<br>
is not symmetric wouldn't it make sense to favor ND3 for the remaining data taking?<br>
(Related to this, I am confused by your Beam Requirements List which looks like you<br>
are asking for 40 days (960 hours) for each of the 5 targets.)<br>
<br>
<br>
Thank you for any comments you can provide.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Kresimir</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am planning to respond to the reader either tonight or tomorrow early since I want to get this out before the holidays.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Sebastian</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>On Jul 1, 2024, at 1:12 PM, Silvia Niccolai via Rgc <rgc@jlab.org> wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>Dear all,<br>
tomorrow we'll have our RGC-analysis meeting, at 8:30AM Jlab time, zoom<br>
link: https://jlab-org.zoomgov.com/j/1601890334<br>
The main subject of discussion will be of course the preparation of the<br>
Jeopardy PAC of next week. Everyone who has yet to give contributions to<br>
Sebastian, please try and get something ready for tomorrow.<br>
I'd also like to converge on the raster calibration: we are finished with<br>
the calibrations of Fall22, and the rest of the preparatory work (in<br>
particular the AI training) is almost complete as well. I'd like to ask<br>
for the pass1 review to be done by the end of July. But we need to decide<br>
what to do about the raster calibration, so please let's try to devote<br>
some time to that tomorrow.<br>
Thanks to all and best regards,<br>
Silvia<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Rgc mailing list<br>
Rgc@jlab.org<br>
https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/rgc</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>