[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: updated talk for PID
Hall D PID Mail List:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Matt wrote:
Dear Matt,
I have one remark below.
>
> Hi Eugene,
>
>
>
> > More PID will be most likely needed for non-overdefined reactions
> > (with a missing particle). It would be nice to get some idea from Matt,
> > how large the additional suppression should be.
> > I doubt that a 1C fit can sufficiently improve the PID.
> >
>
>
> You're right that a 1C fit will definitely let in more background. As
> Alex has pointed out though, GlueX has been designed with excellent
> detection of neutrals in mind, so hopefully we rarely miss pi0's. As for the
> missing neutron, I would not be surprised if we do OK since it is hard to
> mess up pi's and nucleons and the missing neutron peak should be well
> separated.
>
> The 1C fit studies are just one of a number of studies that we will need
> to do following the review. I would suggest a PID meeting dedicated to
> mapping out what studies need to be done to further investigate some of
> these numbers that we have come up with. It is obvious there are different
> camps regarding PID and we should work hard to come to some sort of
> convergence on how we approach this work. While it is always good to have
> cross checks, there's no sense in duplicate effort or bifurcating code.
I think cross checking always duplicates some effort.
Actually in HERMES we had a rule which I think was one of the best things
we ever invented. Every result which was supposed to be shown in public
needed a cross check with an independent code. both people had to analyse
the exact data or MC set and come to agreement on 1% level on track level.
A lot of bugs have been found like that. In some cases we even choosen
different methods to get a result and assigned the difference in results
as systematic error. Of course both methods had to be cross checked on track
level.
So I think some dublication is unavoidable to iron out all hick ups.
I actually thought it was nice to see that Eugene could reproduce your
results. Please don't take this remarks as any critism of your work, I
just wanted to point it out because it is important to me.
Cheers and have a nice day
elke
>
> A few comments about the talk:
>
> Slide 17: I don't understand what you mean by 3C or 4C fits. There should be
> no point where you are performing a 3C fit on that reaction. Unless you are
> doing spatial vertexing?
>
> Slide 19: Similar comment. You are making a 3C fit and cutting at 1% and
> then making a 4C fit and cutting a 1%? Perhaps if I heard the talk it would
> make sense, but the slide on it's own is very confusing.
>
> Slide 20:
> 2nd main bullet - This can probably be reworded. "Additional methods of
> increasing..." or something like that.
>
> 3rd main bullet - If you feel it necessary to list the challenges in getting
> the kinematic fitter working, you should also mention that there is
> experience within the collaboration in overcoming these issues (Curtis, et
> al) and reference the successful kinematic fitter in use in CLAS analysis.
>
>
> --
> --
> ----------------------------
> Matt Bellis
> Carnegie Mellon University
> (office) 412-268-6949
> (cell) 412-310-4586
> ----------------------------
>
( `,_' )+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=
) `\ -
/ '. | +
| `, Elke-Caroline Aschenauer =
\,_ `-/ -
,&&&&&V Jefferson Lab +
,&&&&&&&&: HALL-D 12C / F381 121-A Atlantic Avenue =
,&&&&&&&&&&; Suite 8 Hampton, VA 23664 -
| |&&&&&&&;\ 12000 Jefferson Ave +
| | :_) _ Newport News, VA 23606 Tel.: 001-757-224-1216 =
| | ;--' | Mail: elke@jlab.org Mobil: 001-757-256-5224 -
'--' `-.--. | +
\_ | |---' Tel.: 001-757-269-5352 =
`-._\__/ Fax.: 001-757-269-6331 -
+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+