For low E runs (51384-51457):
- # of skims (analysis launch analysis-2018_01-ver05) = 48
- # of runs (using rcdb query "@is_2018production and @status_approved" for run51384-51457) = 47
- # of random triggers (/w/osgpool-sciwork18/halld/random_triggers/recon-2018_08-ver02/) = 46
Specifically, the difference between item 1 and item2 is run51426 which I don't see anything wrong with?
In addition, the difference between item 1 and item 3 is run51427&run51396, who do have a weird flag, "is_valid_run_end=False".
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GlueX Software Help" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gluex-softwar...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gluex-software/CAHdZdSkaSOD%2BMVMNTNLy3g6tMYhrwKAQ1hMiGud7-siZwuwbMg%40mail.gmail.com.
Indeed, no random trigger skims were created for the runs 51396
and 51427. When this happened in the past, we used the PS trigger
to mimic the rate effect in MC. We should probably do that for
these two runs as well to rule out any systematic effects in the
cross section calculations.
I don't know why the run 51426 apparently passed the rcdb query when it was reconstructed, but does not any more. This could be a mistake.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gluex-software/CAHdZdSmEQ8%2Bu_FhUDcZLQCzXEBv68R6M1tXj3nLLa09rg1HU7g%40mail.gmail.com.
Let me clarify how RCDB works, what is this flag and how it might affect things.
If you are comparing data using aliases like @is_2018production I think it would be helpful to know how those aliases correspond to values in RCDB:
Please, let me know if you have more RCDB related questions. You may also find me on our Slack