star-qaboard-l@lists.bnl.gov
Subject: STAR QA Board
List archive
- From: videbaek <videbaek@bnl.gov>
- To: Daniel Cebra <cebra@physics.ucdavis.edu>
- Cc: star-qaboard-l@lists.bnl.gov
- Subject: Re: [STAR-QAboard] QA Board Meeting 10/29
- Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2021 15:55:08 -0400
Hi Daniel,
interesting list. A couple of comments:
- Are the any injections runs that have been marked as good. I agree they should not be used but would be good to know.
- I agree it does not hurt much t throw out short runs, but if its only because they are short it indicates to me that the statistics errors are not taken properly into account when rejecting.
- I checked a few of the long runs in beginning of list. At least two had a peculiar bunch distributions, but I don't see how this could effect quality, online plot looks good. I might be good to reruns the auto QA with the obvious bad runs taken out, particular all injections runs and look at the summary plots on Friday.
best Flemming
On 2021-11-02 13:40, Daniel Cebra via STAR-QAboard-l wrote:
Hello QA board,
I have followed up on item 2 of the "to do" list for the 19.6 GeV
Bad Runs list - i.e. I have gone back and checked the 76 runs that
Ashik had flagged as bad and looked them up in the Log Book and Run
Log Browser. I have attached an excel file which contains an entry for
each of these 76 runs and records the minbias events, HLTgood events,
and the relevant comments from the Log Book.
There are a few findings:
1) 38 of the Runs flagged as bad were injection runs - I had thought
that these had not been produced?
2) 14 of the flagged runs are short (i.e. <10 minutes). It is not
uncommon to flag short runs as bad, but they don't have much data so
it is not really an issue.
3) 15 of the flagged runs were good, long data runs for which there
were no comments in the log book about why the run might be bad.
4) The remaining 9 runs had a variety of issues that were noted in the
log and could explain why the runs were rejected.
I will follow-up with the 15 long data runs which appear outwardly
to be good to try to determine why they were flagged as bad from the
run-by-run QA.
Regards, Daniel
On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 10:45 AM 林挺 via STAR-QAboard-l
<star-qaboard-l@lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
Hi all:_______________________________________________
A brief minutes for today's meeting:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/event/2021/10/29/qa-board-meeting
1. 19.6 GeV Run-by-Run QA:
Comments:
1). RunID 450 to 500, the jump in eta/phi plot likely due to the
RDO problems during this runing period.
2). At the beginning of the run, the beam is not centered, so there
is shift in eta;
Things to do:
1). Compare the bad run-list to those points that outside the
normal ranges, see if there is plotting issues;
2). Check the RunLog to find out the possible reasons for the bad
runs;
3). Check other variables like Q;
4). Change the tolerance from 5sigma to 3sigma, to check the
sensitivity of cuts.
Conclusion:
Need to do some checks, but the run list after this QA is good
enough for centrality.
2. Discussion: 1). Centrality group is fine with using DCA, but
will also monitor the sDCA. May change DCA to sDCA after having a
good understanding of this variable.
2). Yu Hu will update the code in Github.
3) We are 80% of the way through 14.6 GeV production. 14.6 GeV QA
will start ASAP after the data production is done.
4) For FXT run QA, need a few changes eg. need to change RefMult to
number of primary tracks, shift vr cuts. Each working group should
think about the changes on QA.
Best,
Ting _______________________________________________
STAR-QAboard-l mailing list
STAR-QAboard-l@lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-qaboard-l
STAR-QAboard-l mailing list
STAR-QAboard-l@lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-qaboard-l
--
Flemming Videbaek
senior scientist
videbaek @ bnl.gov
Brookhaven National Lab
Physics Department
Bldg 510D
Upton, NY 11973
phone: 631-344-4106
cell : 631-681-1596
Attachment:
19.6 GeV Bad Runs List.xlsx
Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
-
Re: [STAR-QAboard] QA Board Meeting 10/29,
Daniel Cebra, 11/02/2021
- Re: [STAR-QAboard] QA Board Meeting 10/29, videbaek, 11/02/2021
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.