STAR HardProbes PWG

[Leszek Kosarzewski <leszek.kosarzewski AT gmail.com>]

Hello Rongrong

Thank you for explanation. I'm still a bit confused. What I meant is that when I look at the original MuDst and picoDst production options for real data I see that they differ. As you said picoDst production is just a copy, so why the updated database between the MuDst and picoDst? Does the updated database have any impact on the picoDst production only? Which database to use for embedding?

For embedding we plan to look at StEvent+StMcEvent or any other combination that includes both reco and MC data, this is clear.

Best regards, Leszek

pt., 27 sty 2023 o 16:30 Ma, Rongrong <marr AT bnl.gov> napisał(a):

Hello Leszek

For the study of trigger and vertex finding efficiencies, you need realistic simulations, i.e. embedding into zero-bias events, since pileup plays a role. 

I do not think the change of DbV in MuDst->PicoDst compared to RawData->MuDst is critical since most of the time the PicoDst production is just a copy of the information in MuDst. If you want to use PicoDst, you should verify all the information, including MC truth, is available in PicoDst. If not, you will need to stick with MuDst. 

Hope this helps. 

Best

Rongrong

On Jan 27, 2023, at 8:11 AM, Leszek Kosarzewski <leszek.kosarzewski AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Brennan and All

I unfortunately missed the discussion during the meeting, because I had another urgent meeting. The options seem ok to me, just keep in mind to also change DbV20160418 to DbV20220719 I think and perhaps pp2015c to pp2017a.

Here, I have a question. Is the RawData->MuDst production separate to picoDst production? If so, then I guess we should look at options for the original reconstruction (RawData->MuDst). Though, I see that in some cases the database version changes between RawData->MuDst (DbV20200225) and MuDst->picoDst (DbV20220719). Then I think, when we analyze picoDsts, we should take the database version option from picoDst production. In principle other chain options may differ too, so we need a combination of the 2.

I discussed with Brennan how to do a standalone Pythia8 simulation and reconstruction as well as Pythia8+zerobias embedding. So here we need to make a decision which one to choose. If we want a realistic simulation, then we need embedding with zerobias data.

Best regards, Leszek

czw., 26 sty 2023 o 15:58 Yi Yang via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> napisał(a):

Hi Brennan,

I checked with Te-Chuan who actually ran all the jobs and the chain options Rongrong provided should be good except you need to change ry2015c to ry2017a.

Cheers,

Yi

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 12:58 AM Ma, Rongrong via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Brennan

For simulation, there are also extra chain options one need to use. Here are the chain options I used for 200 GeV p+p analysis in 2015 for producing and reconstructing PYTHIA events embedded into zero-bias events: 

- To produce DaqFile: in, magF, tpcDb, NoDefault, TpxRaw, -ittf, NoOutput

- To produce FzdFile: fzin, gen ̇T, geomT, sim ̇T, TpcRS, -ittf, NoDefault, sdtYYM- MDD.HHMMSS, ry2015c

- Reconstruction: DbV20160418, pp2015c, btof, mtd, mtdCalib, pp2pp, fmsDat, fmsPoint, fpsDat, BEmcChkStat, CorrX, OSpaceZ2, OGridLeak3D, -hitfilt, Tpx- Clu, bbcSim, pxlFastSim, istFastSim, btofSim, emcY2, emcSim, EEfs, mtdsim, TpcMixer, GeantOut, MiniMcMk, McAna, IdTruth, -in, NoInput, useInTracker 

Some of them might not be relevant for your analysis, e.g. HFT related options. I think Yi's group has done such simulation for Run17 dimuon analysis, so maybe they can provide some guidance. 

Best

Rongrong

On Jan 25, 2023, at 11:35 AM, Kolja Kauder via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

I can tell you that that's indeed what we used for the pico conversion, pasted here for preciseness

DbV20220719,y2017a,picoDst,PicoVtxMode:PicoVtxDefault,PicoCovMtxMode:PicoCovMtxWrite,btofMatch,btofCalib::pppAMode,vpdCalib::pppAMode

On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 11:18 AM Rosi Reed <rosijreed AT lehigh.edu> wrote:

Hi Brennan,

Can you please write out the options in your email rather than positing a screenshot?  This way the interested parties can use it for a copy and search if they need to do that in order to answer your question.

Thank you,

Rosi

On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 10:33 AM Brennan Schaefer via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Greetings HP members (cc Kolja),

I'm working on running simulations to study trigger efficiencies with the pp500_2017 dataset (for my J/Psi production vs multiplicity measurement).  Will the options in the attached screenshot work?

best,

b

-- 

Brennan Schaefer

Postdoctoral Research Associate

Physics Department

Lehigh University

Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA

402 Lewis Laboratory

tel: 610.758.5328

_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l

-- 

Rosi Reed
RHIC/AGS UEC member
Associate Professor, Physics Department
Lehigh University
(610)758-3907
16 Memorial Drive East Office 406
Bethlehem, PA 18015
she/her/hers

-- 

________________________
Kolja Kauder, Ph.D.
NPPS, EIC
Brookhaven National Lab, Upton, NY
+1 (631) 344-5935

he/him/his
________________________

_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l

_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l

_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l