STAR Protected
Update 09.13.2018 -- Run 9 pp: Unfolding Errors
A question that's been dogging us for a while is how to disentangle the errors due to the unfolding from the propagated statistical errors. Unsurprisingly, RooUnfold has methods built in to keep
Update 09.11.2018 -- Pythia: Adjusting Efficiency, and Fit Test
In order to assess systematics, I implemented the ability to adjust the efficiency by a specified percentage (a relative percentage that is). The 2 plots below show that the code is wor
iTPC software
1-189 physics BNL, at 15:00 (GMT), duration : 01:00
Phone Dial-in
+1.408.740.7256 (United States)
+1.888.240.2560 (US Toll Free)
+1.408.317.9253 (Alternate
JetCorr Update -- September 11th, 2018
Slides for the JetCorr weekly meeting on September 18th, 2018.
Update 09.07.2018 -- Pythia: particle vs. detector level check (R = 0.2, 0.5)
Previously I checked how the particle and detector level recoil jet spectra compare to each other in embedding in order to get an idea of how large of corrections we should be expecting:
Update 09.06.2018 -- Run 9 embedding: particle vs. detector level check (R = 0.2, 0.5)
One of the surprising about the unfolding results for R = 0.2 and 0.5 is how small the corrections are at high pTjet. The corrections appear to be consistent with unity for pTjet > 5 GeV/c or
Update 09.05.2018 -- Run 9 pp: unfolding results, pi0 and gamma triggers (R = 0.5)
Recently, I unfolded the pi0 and gamma-rich triggered data for R = 0.5 charged jets. The shown solutions were selected in the usual manner: first, the pi0 solution is defined to be the one with
Update 09.02.2018 -- Run 9 pp: tracking efficiency, systematic error (R = 0.2 jets)
Below are the systematic errors due to the tracking efficiency for R = 0.2 charged jets (for each bin of 'eTtrg'). The tracking efficiency was implemented as discussed in these posts:
Update 08.29.2018 -- Run 9 pp: R = 0.2 unfolding, weird behavior in the eTtrg = 15 - 20 bin
If you were to look at the 'eTtrg = 15 - 20' GeV bin of the unfolded 'R = 0.2' data, you'd see a weird bump around 'pTreco = 3' GeV/c in both the pi0- and gamma-triggered distributions:
Update 08.28.2018 -- Run 9 pp: raw vs. corrected data (bin-by-bin test)
Yesterday I tried correcting the R = 0.2 (9 - 11 GeV) data with a bin-by-bin procedure:
Forward Tracking Simulation page
************************************************************
Update 08.28.2018 -- Run 9 pp: raw vs. corrected data (unfolding, R = 0.2)
The results of the recent unfolding of the R = 0.2 data can be found in these links:
upcoming JAVA licensing changes for 2019
Update 08.27.2018 -- Run 9 pp: bin-by-bin test
In a recent internal meeting it was suggested that since the corrections in the unfolding process were so small, it might be prudent to switch to a bin-by-bin correction since the process is far more