STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[Prithwish Tribedy <ptribedy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Hi Fuqiang,

On 2021-10-21 13:09, Wang, Fuqiang 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.

  Thanks for your input. I agree <pT> should be removed and TOFMatch is 
TOF variable not a TPC one so it can also be removed.


> 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.

I would probably agree with you but this is not enough. We need a better 
strategy/argument on how to avoid bias. We have seen in the past that 
one can get completely different physics conclusion just by selectively 
removing some runs from the analysis. Maybe you can join tomorrow and 
bring up your argument.

Best,
Prithwish


> 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