- My blog
- Post new blog entry
- Top bloggers
- Recent posts
Sort by:[Date]
problem running Pythia in ROOT
I went to run pythia within ROOT via TPythia6 (wrapped by EventSTructure pythia reader) taken from libPythia6.so ... it fialed. I checked STAR bugs and found that STAR bug-614 covers this problem. That report says it is a ROOT problem that is not backwards compatible and offers a solution of explicitly loading,
centrality in estruct code
Centrality is organized via the StEStructCentrality singleton class which simply maps an array of floats to a centrality binning.
- The idea is to fill the definitions within a macro so that any of the code can access the definition.
drupal wishlist
implementing my wish list for drupal-blogs is on hold as computing folks haven't responded. I suspect they are quite busy with the run and collab meeting. Anyway, in case I forget:
an EStruct QA object
I built a StEStructQAHists object to do a couple of things:
- move some QA histogramming from macros into code
- standardize a suite of histograms always available to final analyses
dedx qa hists in analysis
Duncan put QA hists for dedx into the analysis object. These are large 150x150 2d hists. Given that the correlations analyses are sorted by multplicity, these seem unnecessarily duplicated.
Also, why not include these in the fluctuations analysis?
Vertex Finding Investigations
Updated on Tue, 2006-03-28 07:36. Originally created by lbarnby on 2006-03-28 07:36. 20 March 2006 19:15:26
Plan for improving vertex finding in Cu+Cu
Anthony looking at ways of telling whether vertex is likely to be the correct one based on event info: ZDC, (apparent) reference multiplicity, CTB sum (correlations between these)
Plan for improving vertex finding in Cu+Cu
Anthony looking at ways of telling whether vertex is likely to be the correct one based on event info: ZDC, (apparent) reference multiplicity, CTB sum (correlations between these)
drupal status in estruct
A couple of differences exist between my local installation of drupal and STAR's which may be causing me difficulty in
organizing/understanding the estruct layout. The most significant 2 are:
Kapusta talk at UW
.
Joe Kapusta gave a nice UW physics colloqium today. It was mostly an overview of RHIC physics and current theoretical understandings of what appears to be happening in RHIC AuAu collision.
Joe Kapusta gave a nice UW physics colloqium today. It was mostly an overview of RHIC physics and current theoretical understandings of what appears to be happening in RHIC AuAu collision.
2005 Charged Pion Data / Simulation Comparison
Updated on Thu, 2007-10-18 09:50. Originally created by kocolosk on 2006-06-21 21:57. Motivation:
Estimates of trigger bias systematic error are derived from simulation. This page compares yields obtained from data and simulation to test the validity of the PYTHIA event generator and our detector geometry model.
Conditions:
Combine PYTHIA partonic pt samples by filling histograms with weight = sample_weight/nevents, using sample_weights
Results:
At the moment I've just linked the raw PDFs at the bottom of the page. The index in the title indicates the charge of the particle being studied. The plots are perhaps a bit hard to follow without labels (next on the list), so here's a guide. Page 1 has pt distributions for the triggers in the order listed above. Pages 2-6 are eta distributions, with each page devoted to a single trigger, again in the order given above. The first plot on each page is integrated over all pt, and then the remaining plots separate the distribution into 1 GeV pt slices. Pages 7-11 repeat this structure for phi, and 12-16 do the same for the z-vertex distributions.
Conclusions:
The agreement between data and simulation appears to be me to be quite good across the board. The jet-patch triggers are particularly well-modeled. A few notes:
Estimates of trigger bias systematic error are derived from simulation. This page compares yields obtained from data and simulation to test the validity of the PYTHIA event generator and our detector geometry model.
Conditions:
- Simulation DB timestamp: dbMk->SetDateTime(20050506,214129). I pick this table up from the DB, rather than from Dave's private directory. Dave changed the timestamps on the files in his directory, so the two files do not match. It turns out that in this case they only differ by one tower (4580), and this tower's status is != 1 in both tables, so there is effectively no difference.
- Data runlist: I use a version of the jet golden run list containing 690 runs. I have heard there is an updated version floating around, but I have yet to get my hands on it
- Simulation files obtained from production P05ih, including larger event samples from Lidia's recent email (http://www.star.bnl.gov/HyperNews-star/protected/get/starsoft/6437.html) but excluding the 2_3, 45_55, and 55_65 GeV samples.
- This is strictly a charged hadron comparison, there is no dE/dx PID cut. The dE/dx dsitributions in simulation are way off.
- Cuts: nFitPoints>25 && |dca|<1. && |eta|<1. && |vz|<60. && pt>2. Also for data I require good spin info and relative luminosity information (these conditions are mostly subsumed by the runlist requirement).
Combine PYTHIA partonic pt samples by filling histograms with weight = sample_weight/nevents, using sample_weights
- 3_4 = 1.287;
- 4_5 = 3.117e-1;
- 5_7 = 1.360e-1;
- 7_9 = 2.305e-2;
- 9_11 = 5.494e-3;
- 11_15 = 2.228e-3;
- 15_25 = 3.895e-4;
- 25_35 = 1.016e-5;
- above_35 = 5.299e-7;
Results:
At the moment I've just linked the raw PDFs at the bottom of the page. The index in the title indicates the charge of the particle being studied. The plots are perhaps a bit hard to follow without labels (next on the list), so here's a guide. Page 1 has pt distributions for the triggers in the order listed above. Pages 2-6 are eta distributions, with each page devoted to a single trigger, again in the order given above. The first plot on each page is integrated over all pt, and then the remaining plots separate the distribution into 1 GeV pt slices. Pages 7-11 repeat this structure for phi, and 12-16 do the same for the z-vertex distributions.
Conclusions:
The agreement between data and simulation appears to be me to be quite good across the board. The jet-patch triggers are particularly well-modeled. A few notes:
- The HT2 pt distributions (page 1, third plot on top row) look funny in simulation. What's with the spike at 6 GeV in the h- plot?
- HT2 eta distribution on the east side for h+ (page 4) has spikes.
- Phi looks good to me
- Vertex distributions for calo triggers in simulation are awfully choppy, but overall the agreement seems OK.
First Look at Charged Pion Trigger Bias
Motivation:
The charged pion A_LL analysis selects pions from events triggered by the EMC. This analysis attempts to estimate the systematic bias introduced by that selection.
Conditions:
- Simulation files, database timestamps, and selection cuts are the same as the ones used in the 2005 Charged Pion Data / Simulation Comparison
- Polarized PDFs are incorporated into simulation via the framework used by the jet group. In particular, only GRSV-std is used as input, since LO versions of the other scenarios were not available at the time.
- Errors on A_LL are calculated according to Jim Sowinski's recipe.
Plots:
Conclusion:
The BBC trigger has a negligible effect on the asymmetries, affirming its use as a "minimum-bias" trigger. The EMC triggers introduce a positive bias of as much as 1.0% in both asymmetries. The positive bias is more consistent in JP2; the HT2 asymmetries are all over the map.