STAR Protected

NN2018 Open HF -- Kunsu OH

 

DNP 2018 -- Searching for diffractive contributions to A_N in forward pi0s

Abstract:

Single Cluster and Jettier Cluster A_LL Cross-Check for Runs 12 and 13

A referee report has asked if we looked at single-cluster events and jettier events.

-- here are the single-photon cone-clusters' asymmetries

Embedding request - dAu D0, HIJING

Embedding of D0 and anti-D0 into zerobias events + Hijing for efficiency corrections which include effects of vertex resolutions.

CCNU 2018

 

Update 06.08.2018 -- Run 9 embedding: jet energy resolution check

It was requested in the last JetCorr meeting (June 5th, 2018) to compare the Jet Energy Resolution (JER) of my response matrix to the one from the hadron-jet paper.  As a first comparison, below

Status on Analysis Maker (muDSTs to OFiles)

Update 06.05.2018 -- Run 9 pp: unfolding results (R = 0.3, charged pi0 jets)

Here I present the unfolded recoil jet spectrum using the new response matrix discussed in this post:

Update 06.05.2018 -- Run 9 embedding: (new) response matrix profile check

I realized yesterday that the profile on the response matrix I had shown to JetCorr was using the wrong axis:

Update 06.05.2018 -- Run 9 embedding: closure tests using new matching algorithm

After modifying the paticle-to-detector-level matching algorithm we had been using (see link below), I performed several closure tests.

Update 06.05.2018 -- Run 9 embedding: new matching algorithm

We recently discovered that I wasn't handling the detector-to-particle matching in the best manner.  What tipped us off was the (very small) population of jets at large 'pTdetector' but small 'pT

Update 06.05.2018 -- Charge vs. Full Check in Pythia

To illustrate the difference between charged and full jets, I had been using a very old plot I had generated in Pythia.  Here's a new one I made for the Annual User's Meeting which looks much nic

JetCorr Follow-Up [05.29.2018] -- TProfile Check On Response Matrix

During my presentation to JetCorr on May 29th, 2018 the profile of the Response Matrix shown raised some eyebrows (see slide 12 in the link below).  It turned out I had drawn it with the errors b

AUM2018 Slides

Attached are the slides for my invited talk at the RHIC/AGS Annual Users Meeting during June 11th - June 15th, 2018.  The talk is 20 + 10 min. long.

JetCorr Follow-Up [05.29.2018] -- RFF and FF Closure Tests Using RFF+FF Response

Yesterday, I redid 3 closure tests using my corrected unfolding code:

JetCorr Follow-Up [05.29.2018] -- RFF and FF Closure Tests (And Bug Fix)

During the weekly JetCorr meeting on May 29th, 2018, it was suggested to perform a closure test using a RFF (FF) response to unfold the detector-level FF (RFF) jet spectrum.  Slide 13 of the pres

Hot Quarks 2018

 

JetCorr Update -- May 29th, 2018

Slides for the weekly JetCorr meeting on May 29th, 2018.

JetCorr Follow-Up [05.22.2018] -- Run 12 vs. Run 9 Embedding

It was pointed out during my presentation to JetCorr on May 22nd, 2018 that while the Run 9 embedding and Run 9 data recoil jet (R = 0.3, charged) 'pT'  distributions fall on top of each other, t

JetCorr Follow-Up [05.22.2018] -- Restricting EtTrg To PtParton Bin

While the various trigger, track, and tower distributions from the Run 9 dijet embedding agree well with our Run 9 pi0-triggered data, there's a significant excess in the embedding for towers with a r