STAR HardProbes PWG

[Youqi Song <youqi.song AT yale.edu>]

Hi Nihar,

To implement -4% efficiency, we looped over each track in the embedding files and generated a random number from a uniform distribution from 0 to 1, and if the random number is greater than 0.96, we dropped that track when clustering jets.

I lowered the y-axis limit and updated the figures on slides 19 and 20 here: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/prelim_request_092822.pdf

They haven't announced the timetable yet, so we are not sure how long the talks need to be, but I can try to get a draft done by the end of the week.

Best,

Youqi

On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 2:11 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Youqi,

Please find my remaining question and comments inline.


On 2022-09-26 21:52, Youqi Song wrote:
> Hi Nihar,
>
> Thanks for the comments. Here are the updated slides
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/prelim_request_092622.pdf
>
> Yes, we can discuss the issue with smearing response after HQ.
>
> As for the tracking uncertainty, it might be difficult to try
> increasing it by 4%, since we are using official embedding and can't
> add tracks back.
>
Not sure, if I understand your procedure correctly, can you inform how
do you implement then -4% in embedding?

> The ratio plot shown is MultiFold/RooUnfold, so I'm not sure what else
> I can label the y-axis to be. Maybe it's more clear now that I
> combined the ratio plot with the main plot of fig 1 in slide 15.

Ok, I understand now, I was thinking about the uncertainty band. But it
is ok.and your plot looks nice now on slide#15.

Can you please also lower y- axis for plots in slide#20 like in slide15?

Looking forward to seeing your HQ presentation draft.

Cheers
Nihar

>
> Best,
> Youqi
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 8:05 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Youqi,
>>
>> Please find my reply and queries inline.
>>
>> On 2022-09-25 23:02, Youqi Song wrote:
>>> Hi Nihar,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the feedback. I updated the slides here:
>>>
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/prelim_request_092522.pdf
>>>
>>> Response to unnumbered comments:
>>>
>>> Yes, I have three MCs, Herwig, Pythia8 and Pythia6, but what I did
>>> earlier was just to use Pythia6 for the *misses*, I still did
>>> unfolding with each of the different MC prior shapes. (Now the
>> plots I
>>> updated on Friday have both the misses and the unfolded parts with
>>> different priors). I plotted the fully corrected distributions
>> with
>>> the different priors together with other sources of sys
>> uncertainty in
>>> backup slide 1, and I just added a backup slide 2 with just the
>>> distributions due to prior shape variation.
>>
>> Ok, that's fine.
>>>
>>> Ok, I've added a slide after slide 15 to show the error breakdown.
>>
>> I like this comparison plot that is in Slide#16. It looks like at
>> this
>> stage both Multifold and RooUnfold give roughly the same
>> uncertainties.
>> But we need to go through some other systematic uncertainties (like
>> you
>> mentioned below) in future after HQ conf.
>>>
>>> For detector and generator level pT shape smearing, I think the
>> idea
>>> is to add some smearing to the response matrix itself. Maybe
>> others
>>> can correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>
>> Not sure if I understand this correctly, this needs a discussion.
>> Could
>> you please bring this topic up in your next presentation?
>> But for HQ, I think it is Ok, the systematic uncertainties you have
>> for
>> STAR preliminary.
>>
>>> Response to numbered comments:
>>>
>>> 1. For the detector response systematics, there are hadronic
>>> correction, tower scale and tracking efficiency variation.
>>> For hadronic correction, I see how it makes sense to vary in data
>> as
>>> well, but I learned that Raghav and Isaac didn't vary data for
>> their
>>> analyses, so I decided to go with how they did it. Also, I tried
>>> varying data as well, but it didn't have a large effect. See the
>>> comparison plot I added in slide 12.
>>
>> Good that you checked this for Hadronic correction.
>>
>>> For tower scale and tracking efficiency, I am not sure how we
>> would
>>> vary data. Right now I decreased the tracking efficiency in Geant
>> by
>>> 4%, and kept data the same. Do you mean that we should drop 4%
>> tracks
>>> in data for this variation as well?
>>
>> No, we don't change anything in the data. We can only change in the
>> tracking efficiency from embedding.
>> You mentioned that you only decreased 4%. Have you considered also
>> increasing 4% in your systematic uncertainties ? Just to confirm.
>>
>>>
>>> 2. Great, I updated the figure in the slide.
>>
>> Good, Can you please lower your y-axis scale (say -0.01) so that all
>> the
>> markers can be seen properly, particularly at large M region?
>> (in a plot, all data points should be presented/shown clearly)
>>
>>>
>>> 3. The star markers are MultiFold mass distributions divided by
>>> RooUnfold mass, so I'm not sure why we want a different style
>> marker?
>>
>> Suggesting because ratio star marker no need to be the same with
>> Multifold marker style. just for cosmetic.
>>
>>> The error bands are my unfolding systematics and RooUnfold
>> unfolding
>>> systematics added in quadrature, and then divided by RooUnfold
>> mass
>>> distribution.
>>
>> Can you please label your Y-axis accordingly without labeling as
>> "Ratio
>> with RooUnfold"?
>> It is not clear what you have written above. Is not it?
>> Please put pT range, "STAR Preliminary", and other info like your
>> slide#19.
>>
>>>
>>> 4. Great, agreed :)
>>>
>>> 5. I updated the legend to include "Detroit tune". I'm not sure we
>>> want to push for the q vs g separation physics message. Maybe
>> Helen
>>> and Raghav can say more about this, but my understanding is that
>> the
>>> quark and gluon jets can have similar fragmentation patterns at
>> 200
>>> GeV and there can be ambiguity regarding e.g. if you want to call
>> a
>>> jet initiated from g->qqbar splitting a quark jet or a gluon jet,
>> so
>>> instead it might be more interesting to treat the jets with
>> different
>>> M and Q as having different fragmentation patterns.
>>>
>> Ok, that makes sense to me.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Nihar
>>
>>> Best,
>>> Youqi
>>>
>>> On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 8:23 AM Nihar Sahoo
>> <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Youqi,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your update and this information.
>>>>
>>>> I have the following comment and questions on your new updated
>>>> results
>>>> (plots) and also your notes.
>>>>
>>>>> Regarding systematics,
>>>>> - You might have noticed that the systematic errors for
>> multifold
>>>> have
>>>>> gone up by a bit. This is because I realized that before, when
>>>> doing
>>>>> herwig and pythia8 shape variations, I was using pythia6 mass
>>>>> distribution for the misses. Now I changed it so that the misses
>>>>> contribution
>>>>> for prior shape variation is also weighted by the mass ratio of
>>>> herwig
>>>>> (pythia8) over pythia6.
>>>>
>>>> Good that you found out this.
>>>> If I understand correctly, you have three MCs: Herwig, Pythia8,
>> and
>>>> Pythia6. You used each of these MC mass distributions for the
>> mass
>>>> shape
>>>> variation for sys uncertainties. Earlier, you used Pythia6 for
>> all
>>>> these
>>>> cases, but now you corrected it with their respective mass
>> shapes.
>>>> Is
>>>> that correct?
>>>> Could you show (include in your backup) us those mass
>> distribution
>>>> variations using these three different MC priors? Curious to see
>> the
>>>>
>>>> difference due to different fragmentations in the mass
>> distribution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> - After talking with Isaac, I learned that unfolding systematics
>>>> due to
>>>>> variation of iteration number and variation of prior shape were
>>>> treated
>>>>> as correlated in previous analyses, while I originally had these
>>>> added
>>>>> in quadrature. Now I also treat them as correlated by just
>> taking
>>>> the
>>>>> largest contribution to the unfolding systematic as the overall
>>>>> unfolding systematic, and add it in quadrature with detector
>>>>> systematics.
>>>>
>>>> Could you please separate out I) statistical uncertainty, II)
>>>> Correlated
>>>> Sys, and III) Uncorrelated Sys in your plot ( using Style2 in
>>>> slide#16)
>>>> without adding in quadrature? Please use a smaller marker size to
>>>> see
>>>> the stat. Error bar (even if it is small).
>>>>
>>>>> - Regarding the question whether there's anything still missing
>>>> that's
>>>>> raised during the meeting yesterday, I forgot to mention that we
>>>>> haven't included detector and generator level pT shape smearing.
>>>> This
>>>>> is included in Raghav's and Isaac's analyses because they did 1D
>>>>> reweighting, but we are not sure if it should be included for
>>>>> multidimensional unfolding.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, Is not it that the total detector effects (tracking
>> efficiency
>>>> and
>>>> pT smearing) are considered using this multifold while you create
>>>> something like the response matrix? What am I missing here?
>>>>
>>>> Comments on your slide#12 (from this email preliminary templet
>>>> slides)
>>>>
>>>> 1. Slide#12: As you have mentioned, you have varied only in the
>>>> embedding, not in the data. General practice is to vary in the
>> data.
>>>> But
>>>> not sure if that will be accurately translated to the variation
>> in
>>>> the
>>>> data. It is interesting. i) Then how do you use tracking
>> efficiency
>>>> (+-4%) variation in embedding to get systematic uncertainties?
>> ii)
>>>> Can
>>>> you please do a test where you apply the same variation in the
>> data
>>>> and
>>>> use the respective variation in the embedding and then check if
>> you
>>>> get
>>>> approximately the same sys. variation between the two cases
>> ?(just
>>>> for
>>>> one case which one has a bigger effect).
>>>>
>>>> 2. I like Style-4 (slide18) of figure-1 if you don't want to
>> shift
>>>> the
>>>> published results. In this case, I would suggest using an open
>> black
>>>>
>>>> star for published results and a filled red marker for your new
>>>> Multifold results. Then you plot your red filled star top on the
>>>> published results (open back mark). In this case, you don't need
>> to
>>>> shift the published results, and no confusion, and will look
>> good.
>>>>
>>>> 3. SLide19, Fig-1 ratio plot: In this plot, assuming statistical
>>>> uncertainties cancel out. Are these bands only the ratio of
>>>> systematic
>>>> uncertainties? Can you use a separate marker style here in order
>> to
>>>> avoid your mass distribution red star style?
>>>>
>>>> 4. SLide#21: Thank you for including raw distribution here. It
>> looks
>>>>
>>>> like there is a noticeable difference between raw and Multifold
>>>> levels.
>>>>
>>>> 5. Slide#23: Thank you for including PYTHIA8 curves. I like this
>>>> plot
>>>> and the comparison. Pythia8 and Data are consistent. You could
>> point
>>>> out
>>>> that further study is ongoing to explore mass distribution
>> between q
>>>> vs.
>>>> g using this |Q| cut. This is the main physics of this |Q| cut
>> here.
>>>>
>>>> Right? (Can you label "PYTHiA8" as "PYTHIA8 Detroit tune" or
>> …STAR
>>>>
>>>> tune?)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Nihar
>>>>
>>>> On 2022-09-23 20:29, Youqi Song via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have updated my slides for the preliminary request at:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/prelim_request_092222_0.pdf.
>>>>>
>>>>> A few things that I would like to point out:
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding systematics,
>>>>> - You might have noticed that the systematic errors for
>> multifold
>>>> have
>>>>> gone up by a bit. This is because I realized that before, when
>>>> doing
>>>>> herwig and pythia8 shape variations, I was using pythia6 mass
>>>>> distribution for the misses. Now I changed it so that the misses
>>>>> contribution for prior shape variation is also weighted by the
>>>> mass
>>>>> ratio of herwig (pythia8) over pythia6.
>>>>> - After talking with Isaac, I learned that unfolding systematics
>>>> due
>>>>> to variation of iteration number and variation of prior shape
>> were
>>>>> treated as correlated in previous analyses, while I originally
>> had
>>>>> these added in quadrature. Now I also treat them as correlated
>> by
>>>> just
>>>>> taking the largest contribution to the unfolding systematic as
>> the
>>>>> overall unfolding systematic, and add it in quadrature with
>>>> detector
>>>>> systematics.
>>>>> - Regarding the question whether there's anything still missing
>>>> that's
>>>>> raised during the meeting yesterday, I forgot to mention that we
>>>>> haven't included detector and generator level pT shape smearing.
>>>> This
>>>>> is included in Raghav's and Isaac's analyses because they did 1D
>>>>> reweighting, but we are not sure if it should be included for
>>>>> multidimensional unfolding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding plotting,
>>>>> - For fig. 1, I made the mass distribution plot with the same
>> data
>>>>> points in 4 different styles.- For fig. 1 ratio plot, the error
>>>> band
>>>>> is now centered at 1 and is the quadrature of RooUnfold's and
>>>>> MultiFold's unfolding systematics, divided by the mean values
>> from
>>>>> RooUnfold.
>>>>> - For fig. 2, I also included a plot of the M vs Q correlation
>>>> with
>>>>> raw data before unfolding.
>>>>> - For fig. 3, I have pythia8 curves plotted together with my
>>>> unfolded
>>>>> mass distributions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let me know if you have any comments/suggestions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Youqi
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 5:47 PM Youqi Song <youqi.song AT yale.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have uploaded my slides here:
>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/youqi/multifold092222
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Youqi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 5:04 PM Tong Liu via Star-hp-l
>>>>>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please find my pdf in this post:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/tongliu/Tong-Lius-HP-PWG-updates
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tong Liu
>>>>>> Ph.D. Student '2023
>>>>>> Physics Dept., Yale University
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tel: 203-435-2130
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 3:29 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l
>>>>>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>> Hello All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We got requests from Youqi and Tong to present their results
>> for
>>>> the
>>>>>> Hot
>>>>>> Quark conference.
>>>>>> And during Youqi's talk at the collaboration meeting, we did
>> not
>>>> get
>>>>>>
>>>>>> time to have Q&A.
>>>>>> So let's meet this week to discuss their updates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Youqi and Tong, can you please send link of your slides in this
>>>>>> thread
>>>>>> again?
>>>>>> (I didn't get your previous emails, the reason I do not know)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If anybody wants to discuss their results, please let us know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HP-pwg weekly meeting Drupal page:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/pwg/Hard-Probes/Weekly-HP-PWG-meeting
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Zoom Meeting link:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1611419615?pwd=VW1hNm43ZDd5d2EvK2R4aEJsQ2ZNZz09
>> [1]
>>>> [1]
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meeting ID: 161 141 9615
>>>>>> Passcode: 744968
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>> Barbara, Yi, Sooraj, Nihar
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-09-19 22:13, Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Last week we discussed a lot at the collaboration meeting, If
>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>> no urgent matter to discuss,  let's cancel this week's HP pwg
>>>>>> meeting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have a great week.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>> Barbara, Yi, Sooraj, and Nihar
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Star-hp-l mailing list
>>>>>>> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Star-hp-l mailing list
>>>>>> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Star-hp-l mailing list
>>>>>> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Links:
>>>>> ------
>>>>> [1]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1611419615?pwd=VW1hNm43ZDd5d2EvK2R4aEJsQ2ZNZz09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!HXAxDjpXwllezGXUg12_CP_CyiB1LboH0iAUfbzsPqj3eNb5aUboVO9QQZ6XzS2n6-OJ3TZo5Nq7ZITGfqCo0e94OA$
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Star-hp-l mailing list
>>>>> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
>>>
>>>
>>> Links:
>>> ------
>>> [1]
>>>
>>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1611419615?pwd=VW1hNm43ZDd5d2EvK2R4aEJsQ2ZNZz09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!BoY0IMYD87YlyC0E6bH2VCPQIHcRLzJj7X0OxGoAGqDB7vvV4xV5kA52ml71HdxJtHwEu26395xLJGHGX59wTJP5rw$
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1611419615?pwd=VW1hNm43ZDd5d2EvK2R4aEJsQ2ZNZz09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!AY99onlbPZAERQ8JTv73g9j81ASM172efJxmpy1l96C33ydc1qsfPOfY5pGMC1asn5Pe-WImnkYUnzek8vvo1KzX1A$