STAR Protected
Update 08.07.2018 -- Run 9 embedding: Jet Energy Resolution (R = 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5)
The previous couple of times I showed the JER, it was for eTtrg = 9 - 15 GeV (the first 2 links below). However, when it comes time to unfold the various eTtrg bins of data, I'll probably use th
iTPC software
BNL 1-189, at 15:00 (GMT), duration : 01:00
I reserved bluejeans
Phone Dial-in
+1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose))
+1.888.240.2560 (US Toll Free)
+1.408.317.9253 (US (Primary, San Jose))
(Global Numbers)
Meeting ID: 481 429 146
Room System
199.48.152.152 or bjn.vc
Meeting ID: 481 429 146
participiant can join w/o moderator.
Update 08.06.2018 -- Run 9 pp: Purity Systematics, NS Bounds
Following up on the systematic study of Run9 purity vs. zTtrk yesterday (link below), here's how the purity varies with the definition of the NS peak.
Update 08.05.2018 -- Run 9 pp: Purity as a function of eTtrg and zTtrk
The last time I calculated the purity as a function of 'eTtrg' I used tracks with 'zTtrk = (0.2, 0.3)'. Those plots can be found in the links below.
Update 08.03.2018 -- Run 9 pp: Systematic Errors, Unfolding Algorithm and Regularization (R = 0.2, 0.5)
Now that I figured out what was going on with the SVD algorithm (see link below), I went about estimating the systematic errors due to the choice of unfolding algorithm (Bayesian vs.
Update 08.02.2018 -- Run 9 pp: Follow-Up On Weird SVD Behavior
Previously, I noted some "weird" behavior when I tried unfolding my distributions with the SVD algorithm:
Update 07.31.2018 -- Run 9 pp: Systematic Errors, Prior (R = 0.5)
After unfolding the charged R = 0.5 jets using a different binning (see link below), I checked the systematic error due the choice of prior.
Update 07.27.2018 -- Run 9 pp: R = 0.5 charged jets unfolding (binned according to JER)
Previously, I tried unfolding R = 0.2 charged jets using a bin size determined by the JER:
Update 07.26.2018 -- Run 9 pp: Weird SVD Behavior
For some reason, I'm having a lot of trouble getting the SVD algorithm to behave during unfolding. To compare the two, I tried unfolding our R = 0.2 (pi0-triggered) charged recoil jets. He
Update 07.26.2018 -- Run 9 pp: Systematic Errors, Prior (R = 0.2)
After re-establishing my binning (see the link below), I tried varying the prior used in the unfolding process to get an idea of the corresponding systematic error.
Collaboration Meeting Follow-Up [07.18.2018] -- EtTrg = (9, 15) Response vs. EtTrg = (9, 20) Response
During my presentation in the JetCorr parallel session of the 2018 Collaboration Meeting at Lehigh University, a listener inquired about how different the response matrices are between using 'eTtrg =
Collaboration Meeting Follow-Up [07.18.2018] -- Variable Binning According To Jet Energy Resolution
One of the comments I received during my presentation at the 2018 Collaboration Meeting at Lehigh University (see link below) was that the extreme wiggles in the unfolded distributions on slide 10 are
Update 07.19.2018 -- Run 9 data: comparing different binning schemes for unfolded R = 0.2 charged spectra
My first attempt at unfolding R = 0.2 and R = 0.5 spectra yielded some very spiky distributions:
Update 07.19.2018 -- Run 9 data: unfolded R = 0.2 and R = 0.5 charged recoil jet spectra (pi0)
Below are the 1st stabs at unfolding the R = 0.2 and R = 0.5 pi0-triggered charged recoil jet spectra using the new (and improved) response matrices. Here are the R = 0.2 and R = 0.5 charged res