Xiaozhi and Shenghui presented their analyses. We discussed differences between the two analyses and their results. 

Difference between Shenghui and Xiaozhi's analyses:
1. Shenghui applies tracking quality, 0<nSigmadEdx<3 and gPT>0.3 GeV/c cuts on partner electron, and pairmass<0.15 GeV. Xiaozhi does not apply any tracking quality cut, apply -3<nSigmadEdx<3 and gPT>0.2 GeV/c cuts on partner electron, and pairmass<0.24 GeV. Looser cuts are recommended in general by Wei since it gives better statistics for photonic electron background subtraction, which is especially helpful at higher pT, and the photonic electron efficiency extracted from embedding is also less reliable on how embedding describes data.
2. Shenghui uses primary track momentum and Xiaozhi uses global track momentum
3. Xiaozhi requires the first TPC point of the track less than 73 cm, while Shenghui does not have such a cut.
4. Shenghui and Xiaozhi use different functions to fit inclusive electron nSigma_dEdx to estimate the inclusive electron sample purity.
5. Shenghui uses TPC dEdx and TOF 1/beta to identify electrons, while Xiaozhi use TPC+TOF for pT<1.5 GeV/c, and uses in addition BEMC p/E for pT>1.5 GeV/c. The purity of the sample for pT>2 GeV/c is increased from 40-80% to about 100% by the additional BEMC requirement. The BEMC p/E cut efficiency is found to be about 70% using photonic electrons from data.
6. in estimating the weighted average photonic electron efficiency, Shenghui may have combined efficiencies of gamma conversion, pi0 and eta Dalitz decay electrons using their production cross section, while Xiaozhi may have weighted according to their contributions to reconstructed photonic electron pairs. We agree to take the discussion offline.

Difference between Shenghui and Xiaozhi's results
1. two results agree with each other, the differences for 0.7<pT<4 GeV/c are well within systematic uncertainties, while pT<0.7 GeV/c are relatively larger but still within statistical unceratinties 
2. Xiaozhi's results have smaller uncertainties for pT>1.5 GeV/c, which should be due to higher purity because of the additional BEMC p/E cut, better photonic electron statistics because of much looser photonic electron reconstruction cuts.

Follow-ups:
1. Shenghui/Xiaozhi: how to get the average photonic electron reconstruction efficiency (see above)
2. Shenghui/Xiaozhi: TOF matching efficiency consistent with other analyses?
3. Xiaozhi: linear fit to electron nSigma_dEdx mean and sigma is slightly off at low pT. Use The actual numbers from data to calculate nSigmadEdx efficiency 
4. Xiaozhi: calculate tracking efficiency using Shenghui's track quality cuts to see if the extracted tracking efficiency are the same as Shenghui's

Recommedation for QM15:
1. take the average of the two results as central values, and assign half of the difference as an additional systematic uncertainty 
- Zhenyu: suggest to does this for pT<1.5 GeV, for pT>1.5 GeV, use Xiaozhi's results only
2. show p+p spectrum for all pT or only for pT> 1.2 GeV/c?
- Zhenyu: suggest to show all pT (results are consistent with PHENIX, see http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/0508034v1.pdf)
3. show updated Au+Au RAA with Run12 p+p reference for pT>1.2 GeV/c
- Wei/Daniel: Au+Au below 1.2 GeV/c was inconsistent with PHENIX

Recomendation for Incoming NPE RAA Publication:
1. report Au+Au RAA with Run12 p+p reference for pT>1.2 GeV/c
2. maybe a separate paper for pT<1.2GeV/c (interesting physics, if Xiaozhi's RAA are correct, there is a clearly indication of suppression at pT<1 GeV/c and enhancement at 1-2 GeV/c, consistent with D0 RAA and model calculations) but need work on low pT AuAu