Updates to presentation

docs/presentations/2018_02_16/main.tex

@@ -20,6 +20,14 @@
 
 \usetheme[]{bjeldbak}
 
+\newcommand{\backupbegin}{
+   \newcounter{finalframe}
+   \setcounter{finalframe}{\value{framenumber}}
+}
+\newcommand{\backupend}{
+   \setcounter{framenumber}{\value{finalframe}}
+}
+
 \begin{document}
 
 \title[$e$ Seeding Validation]{Off-line Electron Seeding Validation \-- Update}
@@ -47,7 +55,7 @@
         \item Show first set of \textbf{optimized} windows
         \item Next steps
       \end{itemize}
-    \item Full set of results is available here \url{https://eg.fangmeier.tech/seeding\_studies\_2018\_02\_15\_12/output/}
+    \item Full set of results is available here \url{https://eg.fangmeier.tech/seeding\_studies\_2018\_02\_15\_18/output/}
   \end{itemize}
 \end{frame}
 
@@ -90,7 +98,7 @@
             \item x2.0(\texttt{wide})
             \item x3.0(\texttt{extra-wide})
           \end{itemize}
-        \item Uniform scaling draws out a clear curve in efficiency v. purity.
+        \item Uniform scaling draws out a clear curve in Efficiency V. Purity.
         \item But can we do better? Find windows with points above the curve?
       \end{itemize}
     \end{column}
@@ -102,13 +110,13 @@
   \end{columns}
 \end{frame}
 
-\begin{frame}{Finding more optimal windows}
+\begin{frame}{Finding more optimal windows (Ex. 1)}
   \begin{columns}
     \begin{column}{0.32\textwidth}
       \begin{itemize}
         \item Figure: first-hit $\delta \phi$ 99\% contours for all relevant\footnotemark pixel regions.
         \item Procedure: Select a cut that tends to reasonably follow the 99\% contours in the \texttt{extra-wide} windows.
-        \item Repeat this for each of the six windows.
+        \item Repeat this for each of the five windows.
         \item In this case, the \texttt{narrow} window seemed appropriate so this particular window was unchanged.
       \end{itemize}
     \end{column}
@@ -118,10 +126,10 @@
       \end{figure}
     \end{column}
   \end{columns}
-  \footnotetext[1]{meaning the subdetectors that have a substantial portion of first hits}
+  \footnotetext[1]{meaning the sub-detectors that have a substantial portion of first hits}
 \end{frame}
 
-\begin{frame}{Finding more optimal windows \-- 2}
+\begin{frame}{Finding more optimal windows (Ex. 2)}
   \begin{columns}
     \begin{column}{0.32\textwidth}
       \begin{itemize}
@@ -142,7 +150,8 @@
   \begin{columns}
     \begin{column}{0.32\textwidth}
       \begin{itemize}
-        \item New working point sets slightly above the linear-scaling curve
+        \item New Working Point lies basically on the linear-scaling curve
+        \item However, NWP with extra-narrow first $\delta \phi$ window sets slightly above the curve
         \item Hints that better performance is achievable, but it's not obvious how to achieve
         \item Many ways to vary parameters...
       \end{itemize}
@@ -165,12 +174,15 @@
   \item Other Thoughts
     \begin{itemize}
       \item What is an appropriate working point, and what performance can be deemed adequate?
-      \item Are there different figures-of-merit that must be balanced (cpu performance, specific background rejections.)?
+      \item Are there different figures-of-merit that must be balanced (CPU performance, specific background rejections.)?
     \end{itemize}
   \end{itemize}
   \vspace{1.5in}
 \end{frame}
 
+\appendix
+\backupbegin
+
 \begin{frame}
   \begin{center}
     {\Huge BACKUP}
@@ -334,5 +346,6 @@
   \vspace{0.1in} \hrule \vspace{0.1in}
   {\footnotesize $^1$Exact, rather than minimum to deal with duplicate seeds in input collection. Could switch to minimum with offline cross-cleaned seeds.}
 \end{frame}
+\backupend
 
 \end{document}