sPHENIX is a new detector at RHIC.

[Cameron Thomas Dean <cameron.dean AT cern.ch>]

Dear collaborators,

I’ve updated the note from the latest feedback I received. 

You can find the new version here https://cernbox.cern.ch/s/53QNtPHOPzjaAhY

And answers to comments can be found here https://cernbox.cern.ch/s/h8VyUtyc0qIN3ew

Cheers,

Cameron

On Mar 8, 2023, at 4:22 PM, Perepelitsa, Dennis via sPHENIX-l <sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Cameron,

Thanks again for documenting this nice work in a systematic and clear fashion, and apologies for my reply a bit after your requested deadline.

As discussed in a recent General Meeting, we will need a different way to circulate notes & collect comments than the main sphenix-l list - but for now I use this same thread.

One immediate concern is whether we intend to show some of these simulation studies publicly, such as at the Hard Probes conference this month. If so, it would be good to propose a concrete set of plots (Figures 10 and 11? Something else?) at the next HF/Upsilon TG meeting. Then, in discussion with Anne from the PubBoard, we would want a circulation of those plots to the Collaboration for review, now with the understanding that they will be shown in public.

Thanks also for taking into account my comments on v0.1 - I give further comments on v0.2 below.

Dennis

— 

More Significant Comments

L160: I understand that it is useful to have a working definition, and a 5%-relative momentum match seems like a fine one. In reality, presumably D0 candidates with poorer reconstructed decay momenta may still contribute near the peak region, no? (say you had one track mis-measured +5% and another -5%)

L175: “These variables were found to have little separation power” — can you specify which? I was not sure whether these are the ones given by “Further variables …” a few lines above, or just the FD.

L207: Can you give us a sense of how reasonable the 10,000 background candidates to 1 signal candidate assumption is? Is that the approximate scale we’re estimating based on the Au+Au HIJING simulation?

Figure 4: there are missing off-diagonal entries for the DIRA, and also the D0 Chi^2 - D0 pT correlation

Eq. 5: In Year-1, we will not have p+p data to bootstrap the sigma_mis-ID / sigma_cor-ID ratio from — what will our strategy be? Use p+p simulations?

L259: We write that there are missing background sources in our study which would be present in data, such as from the partially reconstructed D0->Kpipi or D+->Kpipi decays. However, if this is really a minimum bias Au+Au sample, wouldn’t it naturally include those additional decays and thus those background contributions?

More Minor / Textual Comments 

“Publicised”, “Analysed”, etc. - I guess we do not have an American English style requirement :)

Might be useful to specify “Au+Au luminosity” at L13 and “inelastic nucleon-nucleon cross-section” at L15 for extra clarity

Line 19: extra word “that for both”

Line 35: “lose” -> “loose”

Footnote 2: the underscores in the URL are somehow rendering as raised dot (?)

Line 81: “This effect is modeled in simulation” ? 

Line 89: Is it right to describe the TPOT as something that “accounts” for the distortions? Maybe "to help determine and calibrate the needed correction for …” ? 

Line 92: Should we better write 1.4 T? 

Line 116: Should that be a D0bar in the text ?

Line 165: “These files give” or “This file gives” 

Line 183: “was greater” -> “to be greater”

Figure 2: I might make it even clearer in the caption that these are the mass distribution before and of the cuts we’re developing

On Feb 17, 2023, at 3:48 PM, Cameron Thomas Dean via sPHENIX-l <sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear colleagues, 

I would like to circulate a note on heavy flavor reconstruction predictions during the commissioning period for comments. I would like to keep the comment period open for two weeks from today.

The note can be found at this link

 

A previous version of this note was circulated within the topical group and my responses to those comments can be found in this document. I would like to thank Bill, Xin, Dennis and Joe for helping improve the note.

Cheers,
Cameron

 

From: sPHENIX-HF-jets-l <sphenix-hf-jets-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of Cameron Thomas Dean via sPHENIX-HF-jets-l <sphenix-hf-jets-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Reply-To: Cameron Thomas Dean <cameron.dean AT cern.ch>
Date: Friday, January 13, 2023 at 4:36 PM
To: "Huang, Jin via sPHENIX-HF-jets-l" <sphenix-hf-jets-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, "sphenix-physics-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <sphenix-physics-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: [Sphenix-hf-jets-l] sPHENIX ana note: D0 in AuAu

 

Dear colleagues,

Following my presentation in today’s heavy flavor and quarkonia meeting, I’ve attached the analysis note I wrote on reconstructing D0’s during the commissioning period.

I will circulate this in the sPHENIX physics mailing lists for 2 weeks to collect any comments before circulating it in the general mailing list.

Cheers,
Cameron

_______________________________________________
sPHENIX-l mailing list
sPHENIX-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-l

Dennis V. Perepelitsa
Associate Professor, Physics Department
University of Colorado Boulder
on sabbatical at Brookhaven National Laboratory

_______________________________________________
sPHENIX-l mailing list
sPHENIX-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-l