Steve,
NOvA's just getting started on analyzing the MEC events using your model. There were some preliminary work presented at this weekend's collaboration meeting (at SMU in TX ... I'm here in IL though so I didn't seem them all). I think the general trend is that they "help" -- along with 3-4 other factors/ corrections/ improvements -- in lessening the discrepancy between MC and data.
They're very interested in running with a clean build of R-2_10_X (4 w/ my fixes) if possible for the Neutrino 2016 production run that _must_ start this week. Essentially all the preliminary work they'd done so far is R-2_8_6 (base) + R-2_10_2 (CCMEC) or smallish samples of R-2_10_2 (default+CCMEC). But there are lots of conflating work going on that makes the situation confusing.
-robert
> On Jan 31, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Steven Dytman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> if these are the correct conditions, I have no concerns.
>
> Does Nova have concerns about either MEC model they wish to have addressed?
> I haven't heard anything, either positive or negative.
>
> Steve
>
> On 01/30/2016 06:03 PM, Robert W Hatcher wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I just made a simple change to GSimpleNtpFlux in R-2_10_4 that fixes (relative to R-2_10_2) a problem that bit NOvA last week when they moved to the 2_10 series. As far as I can tell the only other changes to R-2_10_4 are author list updates and copyright date changes. Could we open this tag for public use, like _now_. This is time critical for them to get started on generation for Neutrino2016 in July.
>>
>> -robert
>>
>> Robert W. Hatcher
>> Computational Physics Developer
>> Fermilab CS/SCD/SCS/PDS | WH9NW
>> PO Box 500 MS 234, Batavia IL 60510
>> [log in to unmask]
>> office: 630-840-3102
>> cell: 630-234-0091
>
|