STAR QA Board

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

Hello Emmy

Thanks for looking into this in detail. I would still like to suggest to add these two groups to bad run list. The reason the second group was marked as good is that they are fine within their own region. However, the centrality calibration is not typically done for different regions, which means the calibration parameters based on the majority of data are not suitable for this particular group of runs. The effect is small, but I do not think it is correct in principle. This is also why I suggested to perform only global rejection for refMult with a tighter criterion. 

Thanks. 

Best

Rongrong

On Jun 26, 2023, at 2:07 PM, Duckworth, Emilie via STAR-QAboard-l <star-qaboard-l@lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello all,

At Friday's meeting, we arrived at the conclusion that we should move forward with the badrun list presented, with the addition of a cluster of events seen in the refmult QA plot that looked like they were arbitrarily included as "good" when they shouldn't have been.

Zooming into that section, it is clear why some were marked as good and some were marked as bad. There were 2 run number clusters close together, one that averaged around 100, with a few dropping down to 90, and one that averaged around 90 for the whole cluster. it was the few dropping down to 90 that were marked as bad, and the neighboring cluster, which were all consistent with each other were all marked as good. A detail that was not clear from such a zoomed out plot. 

With this in mind, I propose we do NOT add this cluster to the bad runs list, and continue one with the list presented at Friday's meeting, no edits. except for ones suggested by Takahito as a third party review.

Emmy

<refmultgt20_2023-06-26.png>_______________________________________________
STAR-QAboard-l mailing list
STAR-QAboard-l@lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-qaboard-l