STAR HardProbes PWG

[Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Hello Youqi,

Please find my comments on your nice presentation slides!

Slide4-5:
"Jet substructure measurements tell us …" -> "Jet substructure 
measurements can tell us …"
(It can tell us something related to frag. and hadronization, but not 
definitely)

Slide8:
_Iterative Bayesian Unfolding (please give reference)
_"but this is this is the …" -> "but this is the …"

Slide9:
_"Data" -> can you please mention what data that is? Do you mean this is 
pp200 Gev run12 data?
_ Please give some information about this "data"?
_This slide appears abruptly after slide8, can you please introduce some 
information here? 

Slide10-11:
All these expressions for Qj, M, zg, Rg, need to one slide discussion 
before showing the results. (Expressions are in small text size, will 
not be visible for audiences)
Can you please add one slide before slide9-10?

Slide12:
Can you say something about this weights? Like where and how do you get 
this?

Slide18-19:
There are two small plots, not visible at all.
Can you please make it bigger and clear, and mention how it is related 
to your neural network technique?

Slide24,25,26:
_mention which year pp data?
_R=0.4 -> jet resolution parameter (R)=0.4
_There are three different eta, (TPC, BEMC, and jet eta); make it clear
_ M>1 GeV/c^2 -> Do you use the same cut for unfolding while training 
simulated from the real data? Or while making response matrix.

Slide27,
_ I recall, we had a discussion earlier that we need systematic 
uncertainty along with your statistical uncertainty for these plots in 
order to validate this closure. Any progress in that direction.
_"…centered at the value for 3 iterations " -> Not clear, can you please 
rephrase this and explain a bit more? I think you have put the 
statistical bar only in the case of 3rd iteration results. Is that 
correct? If yes, then mention that stat. Error for other iterations are 
the same.
_"embedding jets into 2 statistically independent samples " -> what are 
those 2 statistical ind. samples? Need some explanation.
_ For your jet pT case, there is a difference at some bins, I think if 
you use your systematic uncertainties then it would be consistent. Any 
comment?

Slide28:
_This slide needs to come after Slide30-31
_"Tracking uncertainty " -> "Uncertainty in tracking efficiency"  
(people may ask you why only -4% not +4%)
_I think it is important to show right plot with "STAR preliminary".

Slide29:
_Remove "Preliminary results:" ; "Fully corrected jet M" make it bigger.
_"... but MultiFold also gives us something else!" I think you can drop 
this and clearly mention what is that "something else"
_Be prepared for it if somebody ask any comment on systematic 
uncertainty comparison between two unfolding methods. Can you please 
mention here what would be your answer?
_ Jet M expression make it bigger; Or just remove it if you add one 
slide as I commented before.
_ I like this plot now.

Slide30-31:
_Remove "Preliminary results:" ;
_You could move these slides before slide29 where you can discuss one 
projection results of jet M.
_"Wider jets tend to have lower |Q|" -> how do you get this conclusion?
_ "Different fragmentation patter" -> do you mean it is because of their 
different jet Mass?

Slide33:
_"apply boosted decision trees on fully corrected data... " -> what is 
"boosted decision tree"?
_ remover "…" at the end. Or say something what is your plan?

Cheers
Nihar

On 2022-09-30 01:11, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>
> Youqi Song (youqi.song AT yale.edu) has submitted a material for a review,
> please have a look:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/61209
>
> Deadline: 2022-10-11
> ---
> If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
> webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov
> _______________________________________________
> Star-hp-l mailing list
> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l