STAR HardProbes PWG

[Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>]

Dear Xinyue,

Thanks a lot for the updated version and the replies. I am fine with the replies. 

I have a minor follow-up question: p38, some fits for the sigma_K^TOF are bad, I think mainly due to the subtraction, do you know the reason? How does it affect your results, any systematics associated with it? 

Cheers,

Yi

On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 6:56 PM Xinyue Ju <xinyju AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Yi,

You can find the updated Run14 analysis note at:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Run14DplusAnalysisNote.v2.pdf

answer to the questions:

-q1, I added all the nsigma fits for TPC and TOF in the appendix.

-q2, the fitting function, and results were added to plot 13.

-q3, because the DCA smearing profiles also include mismatched daughter tracks, and those tracks often have small DCA values and can be removed by the tunned DCA cuts.

-q4, yes, and the correlations between variables are not strong. In the TMVA tunning, the correlation matrix among topological variables is calculated, and the largest correlation factors is around 0.3.

-q5, the uncertainty of B.R. and centrality definition are added together after combining Run14 and Run16 data, I claimed this on page 25.

Thanks and regards,

Xinyue

Yi Yang via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> 于2023年11月7日周二 10:54写道：

Hi Jan,

Yes, I meant Run14 note, I thought you were talking about the full analysis.

I agree that Run16 is good to go, just some little details to follow up. 

Thanks a lot for the explanation. It is good that Run14 and 16 both include BR uncertainty. 

Once Xinyue is replied, we can move forward. 

Cheers,

Yi

On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 6:18 AM Vanek, Jan <jvanek AT bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Yi,

I just would like to double check. I believe these questions are for the Run14 note, right?  Those need to be answered by Xinyue, as he knows all the details on the Run14 part.

I can quickly answer just the last question. The BR uncertainty is added to the combined Run14+Run16 invariant yields. So it should not be a problem that they are not included in the separated Run14 yields.  First, the pT dependent sys. uncertainties are combined for Run14 and Run16 and after that I add the common global uncertainty from the BR. The Run16 note should provide details on that, I believe.  I will double check and add details, if needed.

Best regards,

Jan.

---

Od: Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>
Odesláno: pondělí 6. listopadu 2023 16:27
Komu: Vanek, Jan <jvanek AT bnl.gov>
Kopie: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Předmět: Re: [Star-hp-l] D+- Run14 analysis note

 

Hi Jan,

Thanks a lot for the reply. 

It looks like a good progress. However, I have some minor comments on the Run 16 analysis note, are you planning to implement them?

Could you please answer the following comments or questions so we can move forward? Thanks.

  - p16: Please include all the fitting plots on the dEdX and 1/beta plots in the main text or appendix. It would be nice if we can see the quality of the fits. 

  - p17: You use a 8th order polynomial function to extrapolate the full pT range. Can you show the fitted results? I don't see the results on Figure 11. 

  -Sect 4.1.3: You mentioned "And assuming that the mismatched daughter tracks can be removed by topological cuts." Do you have any proof of this assumption? 

  - Sect 4.1.4: (I think I asked this before, please just remind me.) When you compare the data and fast simulation, did you check the correlations between variables? 

 - p20 - 21: In Run16 analysis, there is Branching ratio uncertainty, but I don't see it here. It should be a common uncertainty in both runs, right? If so, please add it in Run14. 

Cheers,

Yi

On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 10:24 PM Vanek, Jan <jvanek AT bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Yi and Everyone,

I believe that Run16 analysis should be good to go. The only thing that I need to finalize for the GPC is preparation of my codes for the code QA. I have majority of them, including the documentation, the only remaining part I need to make Code QA friendly is the calculation of the PID efficiency.

In addition, I have made a minor update to the Run16 analysis with respect to the current version of my analysis note. Previously, I was using the tracking efficiency systematic uncertainty of pions for 0-10% centrality for all centralities and also for K. The reason was, that the values did not differ much, so it was a bit easier for implementation. In the updated version, I use unique values for pions and kaons in all three centrality bins to utilize the full systematic error calculation. This change does not have significant effect on the total systematic uncertainty.

Overall, I expect to have everything ready and the analysis note updated by the end of this week.

Best regards,

Jan.

---

Od: Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>
Odesláno: pátek 3. listopadu 2023 17:37
Komu: Vanek, Jan <jvanek AT bnl.gov>; STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Předmět: Re: [Star-hp-l] D+- Run14 analysis note

 

Dear Jan, Xinyue, and PAs,

Could you please let us know the status of your analysis? We would like to help push it to GPC level asap. 

Cheers,

Yi

On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 5:29 AM Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Xinyue and Jan,

Apologize again for my slow response. 

I finally read through the Run14 analysis note and the updated Run16 note and paper draft. 

I am okay with the updated Run16 note and new paper draft. 

I have some minor suggestions and comments on the Run14 note: 

  - p16: Please include all the fitting plots on the dEdX and 1/beta plots in the main text or appendix. It would be nice if we can see the quality of the fits. 

  - p17: You use a 8th order polynomial function to extrapolate the full pT range. Can you show the fitted results? I don't see the results on Figure 11. 

  -Sect 4.1.3: You mentioned "And assuming that the mismatched daughter tracks can be removed by topological cuts." Do you have any proof of this assumption? 

  - Sect 4.1.4: (I think I asked this before, please just remind me.) When you compare the data and fast simulation, did you check the correlations between variables? 

 - p20 - 21: In Run16 analysis, there is Branching ratio uncertainty, but I don't see it here. It should be a common uncertainty in both runs, right? If so, please add it in Run14. 

Apologize again for the delay. I am happy to move to GPC if the above questions and comments are answered and addressed. Thanks a lot. 

Cheers,

Yi

On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:06 AM Vanek, Jan via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Everyone,

the new Run14 note is now uploaded to the proposal web page as well:

https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/vanekjan/Dpm_web/Note.html

Sorry for the delay uploading it there.

Best regards,

Jan.

---

Od: Star-hp-l <star-hp-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> za uživatele Barbara Trzeciak via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Odesláno: pondělí 13. března 2023 6:59
Komu: Xinyue Ju <xinyju AT gmail.com>
Kopie: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Předmět: Re: [Star-hp-l] D+- Run14 analysis note

 

Hi Xinyue,

thank you for the answers and the new note. They look good to me.

 

Regarding the tracking efficiency, there is currently a discussion on a common way of estimating the sys. unc. on the tracking within STAR.  

The approach may still change once you further work on the paper, but for now please make sure with Jan that you use the same method.

My suggestion is to use 3% per track (as Jan has) + sys. unc. from variations of nHitsFit cut. 

Once you unify the tracking efficiency unc. approach with Jan, for me the paper is good to go to GPC.

Cheers,

Barbara 

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 7:18 PM Xinyue Ju <xinyju AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Babara,

Thank you for your valuable comments. Please find the updated analysis note on the following link, it will be updated to the paper proposal web page soon.

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Run14DplusAnalysisNote.pdf

Here are some explanations for the comments:

-p10: I add a table with all the topo. cuts

-Fig. 5, the cut value here is the TMVA weights to determine the real cuts, I add some explanation on p10

-p11: I fit the bkg. function to the wrong sign distribution first then fit to the right sign distribution plus a Gaussian function

-p14: I added momentum resolution plots 

-Fig. 12 left: I checked and it is due to low statics on that bin, and we require the kaon pT > 0.3, so this will not contribute to kaon PID

-p17: I added the fit function and lines on the plot

-p20: yes the stat. fluctuation was removed, I added a description on p22

-p20, 21: no it's the total TPC tracking uncertainties. The average is 8% on the full pT range actually. There are some fluctuations because I calculated it bin by bin. I can set it to 8% on all pT regions.

-p20: PID sys. unc. for run14 and run16 is considered to the same value of 3%, I change the description on this.

- Fig. 18: I removed this data point before because it is not included in the run14+run16 spectra. I added the 40-80% 0-0.5 GeV data point in Fig.19 now.

- p29: I added a new total cross-section including Xi_C on p31. The number in Tab. 6 is the total cross-section of D0 D+ Ds and Lc, we also explain this in the Dplus paper draft. Because there is no measurement of Xi_C close to RHIC energy, it could be arbitrary if we take the number from PYTHIA or ALICE p+p. We think it is better to report the total cross-section of  D0 D+ Ds and Lc here

Best Regards,

Xinyue

Barbara Trzeciak via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> 于2023年1月23日周一 22:15写道：

Hi Xinyue,

the analysis note looks good. 

I have a few comments and questions:

- p10: please add a table with all the cut values, for the 6 pT and 3 centrality bins. 

Also, it would be useful if you add plots like Fig.5 but for other pT and centrality bins. It can be in an appendix, or just a link to a separate document with all the plots.

- Fig. 5 :"The significance (green) achieves its maximum value when the cut value is 0.535" - it's not explained in the text what is the cut that is mentioned here. 

- p11: do you fit your bkg. function to the correct and wrong sign distribution in the side-band regions ?

- p14: do you have momentum resolution plots for pi and K ? It would be nice to add them to the AN and refer to another note in case they are already shown somewhere else for 2014 data. 

- Fig. 12 left: do you know why there is this jump up for the first point in the Kaon nSigma cut efficiency ?

- p17: "The TOF matching efficiency, TPC PID efficiency, and TPC PID efficiency distributions are fitted with the pol8 function to extrapolate to full pT range" - each of this efficiency is fitted separately with a pol8 function ? Would be good to see some examples of these fits. 

- p20: have you taken into account the Barlow criterion when assigning the sys. unc. from the cut variations ? This procedure should be followed to avoid accounting for stat. unc. in the sys. unc. estimation. 

This approach was used for 2016 data analysis and I think it should be consistently used here as well. 

- p20, 21: TPC tracking efficiency - your sys. unc. numbers for D meson are quite small in some pT bins. What is your TPC tracking systematic uncertainties for a single particle ?  In 2016 this number is ~3%, and since you have 3 daughters that gives ~9% (3*3%) for a D+/- meson.

- p20: PID sys. unc. are smaller than for 2016 data - I think it's better if the same approach is used for 2014 and 2016. 

- Fig. 18: why don't you include the 0.5-1 GeV/c bin for 40-80% centrality ? The signal significance there is more than 5sigma. 

- p29: of the pT spectra at unmeasured low pT range is known -> of the pT spectra at unmeasured low pT range is not known

- p29: It's not clear to me if you included Xi_C contribution to the sys. unc. on the total charm production cross section ? Page 25 ("By quoting this into systematic ... ") suggests so, but the number in Tab. 6 is the same as you showed before. 

Cheers,

Barbara

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 11:05 AM Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jan, Xinyue,

thanks a lot for the note. I will have a look asap and let you know my comments.

Just wanted to ask about the total charm cross section on which we recently had discussion in the PWG meeting.

There were a few questions/suggestions related to the treatment of the sys. unc. 

Xinyue, have you had a chance to address these comments and include them in the analysis note ? 

Cheers,

Barbara

On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 5:26 AM Vanek, Jan via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Everyone,

Xinyue made some updates to the Run14 analysis note. The new version is uploaded to the paper proposal web page:

https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/vanekjan/Dpm_web/Home.html

Best regards,

Jan.

---

Od: Star-hp-l <star-hp-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> za uživatele Vanek, Jan via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Odesláno: pátek 13. ledna 2023 12:08
Komu: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Předmět: [Star-hp-l] D+- Run14 analysis note

 

Hello Everyone,

I'm happy to let you know, that I have just uploaded the Run14 D+- analysis note to the paper proposal web page:

https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/vanekjan/Dpm_web/Home.html

Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Thank you.

On behalf of the PAs, best regards,

Jan.

_______________________________________________
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

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