STAR HardProbes PWG

["Ma, Rongrong" <marr AT bnl.gov>]

Hello Ziyue

Thanks for your response. Sorry, I misread your slide. It is chi2/ndf ~ 3.5, not 3.5 sigma. 2.2 sigma, which really isn't rare, further supports approach-1, I think. 

Best

Rongrong

On Feb 27, 2024, at 2:15 PM, Ziyue Zhang <zzhan70 AT uic.edu> wrote:

To Rongrong

I don't think there's a specific reason to rule out this Run09 data point, other than if the chi2 test is not satisfactory.

Run09 has HT0 and HT3 data: HT0 2-10 GeV/c, HT3 7-14 GeV/c, with 7-10 GeV/c being the overlap.

For a good reason, the paper used the HT3 result for the overlap pt range.

In my combination, the problematic pt bin is 6-7 GeV/c, which is the last HT0 made into the final result, but in the middle of HT0 covered pt range.

I was under the impression that this was the first HT3 bin and maybe the trigger efficiency estimation was biased, but as you can see this is untrue. So no reason to drop it.

PS: I don't quite understand why you quote 3.5 sigma here. I'm naively thinking the number of sigma is the solution to Erf(x/sqrt(2))=1-p, where p is the p value from the chi2 test 0.029. (x ~ 2.2)