search

JeffersonLab / clasdoc-g12-procedures

Summary and analysis procedures documentation for the g12 experiment with CLAS at JLab.
The Unlicense
1 stars 1 forks source link

table of systematic uncertainties #86

Closed theodoregoetz closed 9 years ago

theodoregoetz commented 9 years ago

List of systematic uncertanties:

7 % Sector by Sector 2.6 % Flux 2.7 % Beam Energy 0.5 % Target

mckunkel commented 9 years ago

My numbers are 2.4% Fiducial cuts (based on nominal to loose and nominal to tight) 0.4% z-vertex between -110 ≤ z ≤ -70 (−0.051 + 0.491Eγ)% for Flux (3.61 + 0.65Eγ)% for Sector

theodoregoetz commented 9 years ago

@mckunkel those numbers are quite a bit off from the plot i got from you before. Did something change?

mckunkel commented 9 years ago

no, those are the numbers I gave before and are in my dissertation

In the code I sent you it read TF1 _sector = new TF1("sector","[0] + [1]_x",1.,6.25); sector->SetParameter(0,0.0361406); sector->SetParError(0, 0.0106324); sector->SetParameter(1,0.00650915 ); sector->SetParError(1,0.00296455);

TF1 _flux = new TF1("flux","[0] + [1]_x",1.,6.25); flux->SetParameter(0,-0.000505938); flux->SetParError(0, 0.00404145); flux->SetParameter(1,0.00490575 ); flux->SetParError(1,0.00112684);

theodoregoetz commented 9 years ago

I was using the resulting error at the top of the energy range which is about 7% for sector (at about 5.4 GeV), and 2.6 % for the flux at 5.4 GeV. We could just as well quote it for the center of the tagger.

theodoregoetz commented 9 years ago

Also, I worry about introducing a table of systematic uncertainties that are not explicitly calculated in this document. This table was not asked for and it may just be inviting the reviewers to suggest we include a lot more work on how these were calculated.

mckunkel commented 9 years ago

Sure, I think your suggestion is best. I was only reaffirming that the numbers did not change.