Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

star-fcv-l - Re: [Star-fcv-l] Inputs for run-by-run QA variables for new data sets

star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

List archive

Re: [Star-fcv-l] Inputs for run-by-run QA variables for new data sets

Chronological Thread  
    < Chronological >       < Thread >
  • From: Jiangyong Jia <jiangyong.jia AT stonybrook.edu>
  • To: star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
  • Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] Inputs for run-by-run QA variables for new data sets
  • Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:47:44 -0400
Dear All,

Let me add a few points here.


We should distinguish between QA and physics monitoring plot.  QA should be mainly based on detector quantities, while physics monitoring quantities are <pT> etc

My suggestion would be to QA on detector quantities, while we can monitor the physics quantities to identify issues but not cut on them in the first round.

The first list is mainly based on TPC, but we should have a similar but shorter list for the EPD which will be used as new centrality estimator. Such as <EPDEHits> and <EPDWHits>. We should then have detector specific QA from second list.

At the end of the day if we can produce a set of flags for each run, i.e. a flag each for TPC centrality, EPD centrality, and also one for each main detectors.  We can then decide later on what combination of those flags should be used to define the final list of good runs.  Of cause users can include additional flags for further rejection.


Jiangyong

On 10/21/21 1:09 PM, Wang, Fuqiang via Star-fcv-l wrote:
Hi Prithwish, All,

I wouldn't include <pT> and <TOFMatch>. The <pT> is too physics specific.
<TOFMatch> is useful for pileup rejection but seems too excessive at the general QA level.

I wouldn't include any in list B) as FCV-wide QA variables. I think these
should be analysis specific.

I understand the rationale behind a more formal collaboration-wide QA and it
has merits. But it may also have the unwanted consequences that 1) one size
doesn't fit all, and 2) analyzers may become too relying on general QA and
neglecting needed analysis-specific QA.

Best regards,
Fuqiang



-----Original Message-----
From: Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> On Behalf Of Prithwish
Tribedy via Star-fcv-l
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 12:18 PM
To: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] Inputs for run-by-run QA variables for new data sets

Hello Everyone,
Can we please finalize a list of QA variables by today and send it to
Ashik and
team before tomorrow's QA board meeting. Here is my proposal, please chime
in:

A) QA variables for centrality determination (for collaboration wide bad
runs):
1. <RefMult>
2. <TOFMatch>
3. <pT> (I am not sure about this)
4. <η>
5. <φ>
6. <DCA>
7. <nHitsFit>
8. <Vz>

B) QA variables for FCV analyses (for region of stable run and analysis
specific
bad runs):

1. Everything used in centrality determination 2. <TOFMult> 3. <Q1xTPC> 4.
<Q1yTPC> 3. <Q2xTPC> 4. <Q2yTPC> 5. <Q1xEPD> 6. <Q1yEPD> 7. <Q2xEPD> 8.
<Q2yEPD> 9. <Q1xZDC> 10. <Q1yZDC> 11. <X>_{ZDC} 11. <Y>_{ZDC} 11.
<Q1xBBC> 11. <Q1yBBC> 11. <Q2xBBC> 11. <Q2yBBC> 9. <EPDEHits> 10.
<EPDWHits>

Anything else?
Best,
Prithwish



On 2021-10-17 21:33, ASHIK IKBAL via Star-fcv-l wrote:
Dear Shinlchi,

Thanks for pointing this out. We can add <phi> and the vertex related
quantity,<dca> in the QA list. We will have separate bad run list for
centrality determination and also for the physics analyses as
clarified by Rongrong in his email.

The reason for adding the Q-vectors in the list is the following. We
see there is a run ID dependence of the Q-vectors. The Q-vectors are
really necessary for flow analyses, and hence has been added in the QA
variable list.

Therefore, the idea of this discussion is to get suggestions about the
QA variables that are sensitive to centrality determination as well as
physics analyses from the PWG.

Best,
Ashik

On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 1:33 PM ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l
<star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Ashik and all
Thanks for the initiation. I have a few comments and questions.
I was wondering why you have chosen to use Q-vectors in stead of more
direct average <phi> at least for TPC, since you do have also average
<eta> and <pT>.
But maybe Q-vector would be directly used by the analysis, and could
be more sensitive to the location of dead azimuthal sector than
<phi>, so it might be more reasonable as well, though. Another
question is about the vertex qualities, such as run-by-run average
vertex position in radial/xy and z direction?
The “average
DCAxy/z in each event” was also found to be a good indicator for
removing bad events in BES1 especially for central events in
fluctuation analysis, so I was also wondering if run-by-run selection
based on such DCA related information as well, but this might be too
much for the current initial QA studies especially for the general
centrality. Thanks again.
Best regards, ShinIchi

On Oct 18, 2021, at 1:49, Prithwish Tribedy via Star-fcv-l
<star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
Hi Ashik and all,
During our isobar analysis we compiled a list of observables.
This may give us some clue about which quantities are important:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/summary_qa_step2.html
I would still encourage people to provide input before Friday.
Best,
Prithwish


On 2021-10-17 12:36, ASHIK IKBAL via Star-fcv-l wrote:
Hi FCV folks,
We had a discussion on the QA variables for new and upcoming data
sets
in the last week QA board meeting. So far we (the QA team) are
using
the following variables for 19.6 GeV run-by-run QA analysis:
1 runidvsrefmult
2 runidvstofmatched
3 runidvsavgpt
4 runidvsavgeta
5 runidvsavgQ1x
6 runidvsavgQ1y
7 runidvsavgQ2x
8 runidvsavgQ2y
9 runidvsavgEpdQ1x
10 runidvsavgEpdQ1y
11 runidvsavgEpdQ2x
12 runidvsavgEpdQ2y
13. runidvsbemcmatched
The list of badruns (identified based on the QA variables using
automated run-by-run QA algorithm) is really necessary for the
centrality team. The QA board has set a deadline of next Friday
(Oct.
22) to finalize the variables.
Please speak up if anyone wants to look at any other variables
for the
run-by-run QA analysis.
Thanks,
Ashik
--
Ashik Ikbal
Research Associate
Kent State University
Department Of Physics
Kent, OH 44242, USA
Contact no.s: +1 631-504-7647 (USA)
+91 8250216234 (India)
Alternate e-mails: asheikh2 AT kent.edu ashik AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov
ashik.ikbal.sheikh AT cern.ch
_______________________________________________
Star-fcv-l mailing list
Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l
_______________________________________________
Star-fcv-l mailing list
Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l
_______________________________________________
Star-fcv-l mailing list
Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l
--

Ashik Ikbal

Research Associate
Kent State University
Department Of Physics

Kent, OH 44242, USA

Contact no.s: +1 631-504-7647 (USA)

+91 8250216234 (India)

Alternate e-mails: asheikh2 AT kent.edu
ashik AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov
ashik.ikbal.sheikh AT cern.ch
_______________________________________________
Star-fcv-l mailing list
Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l
_______________________________________________
Star-fcv-l mailing list
Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l
_______________________________________________
Star-fcv-l mailing list
Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page