STAR Protected
FMS+RP Systematic Uncertainties
fms meeting -- 01/10/19
-- systematic uncertainties estimate
Update 12.21.2018 -- Run 9 pp: Pythia Vs. Embedding Comparison (With Matching)
Previously, I had compared our detector-level pythia simulation to the detector-level embedding:
Analysis Meeting Slides -- December 13th, 2018
The attached slides were presented as part of the JetCorr parallel session of the Winter 2018 Analysis Meeting at BNL.
Update 12.03.2018 -- Run 9 pp: Response Comparison For Different Priors
By definition, the response matrix should be more or less independent of the prior used to train it. So is that actually true in my set-up? Below are some plots to compare the response mat
Update 11.30.2018 -- Run 9 pp: Response Variation
I've been utilizing very wide bins in my response matrix up until now assuming that the variation of the response over a single bin is small. To check this, I've put together a couple of plots.&
Update 11.28.2018 -- Run 9 pp: Pythia Vs. Embedding Comparison
We wanted to make sure that our parameterization of the Run 9 response reproduces the detector-level Run 9 dijet embedding, so below I compare our standalone Pythia 8 simulation (pi0-trigger) with the
Update 11.27.2018 -- Run 9 pp: Data Vs. Embedding Comparison
Just as a check, below I compare the detector-level charged-hadron-triggered recoil jet spectra (charged, R = 0.2 and 0.5) from the Run 9 dijet embedding to our Run 9 pp pi0-triggered data. The