Page History

June

...

8, 2010

Phone bridge *number: 617-452324-21637520  * , time 5pm to 6:30 pm , 10 lines
Agenda:
A) Improve communication between PAs & GPC

1. Are all questions below understood and people working on them?
2. will we have written answer ready before Friday (or should we ask for one more week) ?
3. Below is a list of Questions/Comments from GPC :
   1. the distribution of difference between EMC cluster center and the TPC
      track for + and - tracks:
      Need to check the distributions with signed distance, and separate
      xy and z directions.
      Need to check the distributions for W+- candidates only
      The effect of the cut on this quantity is probably small in terms of
      efficiency difference between + and - candidates. But it will be good to get
      an estimated number on this.
      These distributions will provide a good quantitative measure on how
      well the TPC calibration is. Once we know the difference for + and - tracks,
      we could estimate the magnitude on possible momentum distortions for tracks.
      We can estimate the effect of this distortion in real data.
   2. the sPtBalance vs awayside-Pt figures do show that the correlation
      depends on ET of the candidates. The Pas are asked to impose an awayside-Pt
      (15 GeV/c or 20 GeV/c), and use the same procedure as the current analysis,
      to generate QCD background and W candidates.
   3. regarding the simulated STAR W-->e responses overlay with the measured
      W candidates. The Pas gave a plot where the data points are different from
      what was in the paper. It was explained that different cuts were used. Just
      looking at the figure it appears that the matching quality between W+ and W-
      is not the same. The Pas should provide the figure using the cuts and data
      points that we intend to publish.
   4. for ET>50 GeV region one table listed 6 events with bad
      gain/saturation, and the actual tables only have 5 of them. We should have a
      consistent number listed.
   5. whether we should have 'first measurement' explicitly stated in the
      title of the paper – people have different opinions. My quick glance of the
      STAR papers showed no appearance of 'First' in the title of our published
      papers although we have a number of measurements would qualify for such.
      Bedanga can correct me if I missed a paper. My own preference will be to
      agree with Ernst that it is not a STAR style to explicitly claim 'First' in
      a STAR paper.
   6. we are happy with the overall structure of the paper. People should
      send comments on the paper text/physics to the Pas next week.

June 1, 2010

Agenda:

May 18, 2010

Agenda:

...