[Rgc_analysis] [Rgc] RGC-analysis meeting tomorrow

Tue Jul 2 21:14:57 EDT 2024

Good evening Sebastian,

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.

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.

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.

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".

Best,
Patrick

________________________________
From: Rgc <rgc-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Sebastian Kuhn via Rgc <rgc at jlab.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 09:37
To: Silvia Niccolai <silvia at jlab.org>
Cc: Kuhn, Sebastian E. via Rgc <rgc at jlab.org>; rgc_analysis at jlab.org <rgc_analysis at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: [Rgc] RGC-analysis meeting tomorrow

Dear fellow jeopardy defenders,

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
ww2.odu.edu<https://ww2.odu.edu/~skuhn/NucPhys/RGC_PAC52Jeopardy_clean.pptx>
[cid:9b406f51-da5d-44eb-ab86-e222b4922948]<https://ww2.odu.edu/~skuhn/NucPhys/RGC_PAC52Jeopardy_clean.pptx>
- 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).

I also am still asking for general comments, suggestions and imrpovements, as well as your proposed response to our reader’s report:
Begin forwarded message:

From: Krešimir Kumerički <kkumer at phy.hr<mailto:kkumer at phy.hr>>
Subject: Comments on J12-24-RunGroupC
Date: June 27, 2024 at 6:44:20 AM EDT
To: "Kuhn, Sebastian E." <skuhn at odu.edu<mailto:skuhn at odu.edu>>
Cc: "Dr. Markus Diehl" <markus.diehl at desy.de<mailto:markus.diehl at desy.de>>, "Ilieva, Yordanka" <ILIEVA at sc.edu<mailto:ILIEVA at sc.edu>>

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.

Dear Sebastian,

I am a member of the PAC52 assigned to do a first reading
of Run Group C Jeopardy update,
(for which you are the contact person),

Since this run group comprises some well-established
and thoroughly reviewed experiments I don't have  many
scientific questions.

Still, PAC has to address some points during Jeopardy review,
and it would be helpful if you had some comments on the following:

1. Jeopardy instructions say that "If the experiment has already received a
portion of its allocated beam time, the spokespersons should present the status
of the analysis of the existing data and the projected results for the final
complete data set. The goal is to show the physics impact of the beam time
requested in the jeopardy update."

I notice that update document focuses on the preliminary results from the
already recorded data (actually small part of it), and I don't see any
projections for the complete data set. This would be singularly
helpful to have, but I certainly understand that this
means a lot of work and likely cannot be produced for the PAC meeting. In that
case, PAC will work with what we have.

2. Is there any change in the status of the collaboration in terms of
institutes, committed staff, and prospective students that could
impact the feasibility of performing and analyzing proposed measurements?

3. Finally, I do have one "scientific" question. TAC report says that
your APOLLO target "has been operating with great success". On the
other hand, you mention problems with pre-irradiation of this target
and consequently the sub-optimal polarization in the first part of
your run, so the remaining 1/3 of the originally requested 120 PAC
days, if approved, would result in more than 1/3 of the additional
statistics. Could this improvement (or previous degradation) be somehow
roughly quantified in terms of some effective PAC days or related quantifier?

Also, when you write in the third-to-last sentence of the report
"... mostly due to (deuterated) ammonia samples ..." do you mean that
measurements with ND3 were more affected by the pre-irradiation problem
than those with NH3, or is the problem ND3-NH3 symmetric? Because if it
is not symmetric wouldn't it make sense to favor ND3 for the remaining data taking?
(Related to this, I am confused by your Beam Requirements List which looks like you
are asking for 40 days (960 hours) for each of the 5 targets.)

Thank you for any comments you can provide.

Best regards,
Kresimir

I am planning to respond to the reader either tonight or tomorrow early since I want to get this out before the holidays.

- Sebastian

On Jul 1, 2024, at 1:12 PM, Silvia Niccolai via Rgc <rgc at jlab.org> wrote:

Dear all,
tomorrow we'll have our RGC-analysis meeting, at 8:30AM Jlab time, zoom
link: https://jlab-org.zoomgov.com/j/1601890334
The main subject of discussion will be of course the preparation of the
Jeopardy PAC of next week. Everyone who has yet to give contributions to
Sebastian, please try and get something ready for tomorrow.
I'd also like to converge on the raster calibration: we are finished with
the calibrations of Fall22, and the rest of the preparatory work (in
particular the AI training) is almost complete as well. I'd like to ask
for the pass1 review to be done by the end of July. But we need to decide
what to do about the raster calibration, so please let's try to devote
some time to that tomorrow.
Thanks to all and best regards,
Silvia

_______________________________________________
Rgc mailing list
Rgc at jlab.org
https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/rgc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc_analysis/attachments/20240703/c232722a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-dx1n0iz5.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4916 bytes
Desc: Outlook-dx1n0iz5.png
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc_analysis/attachments/20240703/c232722a/attachment-0001.png>