STAR HardProbes PWG

[Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>]

Hi Youqi,

your updated slides look good.

I have a few remaining comments, and sign off.

Cheers,

Barbara

- You have some slides with the same title. It's a good practice to have a distinct title for each new slide (excluding animations). 

Please consider changing the titles, e.g.: s.9-10 title can be "Observables", s14: "Method: machine learning", s29 "Closure test: results"

- s10: increase size of the z_g definition 

- s19: "All hyperparameters are default" - here you have a hyperlink, but maybe also add the link on the slide.

- s20: I think you can remove this one

- s31: plot - it's hard to see unc. with low values. Could you try to zoom in on the y-axis (you have some space, maybe divide the legend into two columns).

- s31: you show your unc. after s.30 where you have a comparison to the published results and uncorrelated unc. in the ratio. The question on s.31 might then be which of the listed unc. are uncorrelated, i.e. which are included in the red ratio band on the previous slide. Maybe you can specify this on s.31 - you can for example use some color for the unc. that are uncorrelated with the ones from the RooUnfold method.

On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 1:02 PM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Youqi,

Thank you for implementing my suggestion.
Please find my replies inline.

On 2022-10-03 23:08, Youqi Song wrote:
> Hi Barbara and Nihar,
>
> Please find my updated slides here
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/hq_1022_v2.pdf
>
> Response to comments (unmentioned ones are already implemented in the
> slides):
>
>> - Make sure you are fine in terms of time.
>
> I'm planning to practice these two days, and if I run out of time, I
> will move slides 13-22 to backup. And if that's not enough, I will
> also move slide 31 to backup.
>
>> _"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"?
>
>  (Previously on slide 9, now on slide 12). This "data" is
> PYTHIA6+GEANT simulation, so I put it in quotation marks. I could show
> these distributions for the actual data, but I assume that would
> require me to put in systematic and statistical uncertainties for all
> these observables in, which might not be necessary for the goal of
> this slide, which is simply to show that MultiFold is unfolding 6
> observables simultaneously and is unbinned. The difference between the
> red and the black is to show the need for unfolding and the effect of
> unfolding.
>
Then I would not label it "Data". Just say "PYTHIA6+Geant" (it is
understood that is why you need Multifold)
Besides, Can you please mention "p+p sqrt(s) = 200 GeV" outside or
inside the figiures to indicate the collision energy?

>> Can you say something about this weights? Like where and how do you
>> get
>> this?
>
> (Previously on slide 12, now still on slide 12). These weights are
> exactly the output of MultiFold. (Would you like me to elaborate more
> on this?)
It would be good to put a few words there although you can say in the
presentation.

>
>> 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?
>
>  (Previously on slides 18-19, now still on 18-19). I removed one of
> the plots and made the other one bigger. The choice of these neural
> network activation functions are default from the original OmniFold
> paper.

Good.
>
>> _ 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.
>
>  (Now on slide 26). I used the same cuts for PYTHIA6+GEANT simulation.
thanks for clarification.
>
>> _ 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.
>
>> _ 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?
>
>  (Previously on slide 27, now on slide 29). I don't think this was
> brought up before for my analysis. Maybe it was for Monika's? The
> difference in pT here is mostly because the normalization is done per
> jet, not per event as what's usually done for pT, so a small deviation
> at the low pT bin will cause a large deviation in the opposite
> direction at high pT.

I recall we had a discuss on this topic. how to present these small
differences with sys and stat. uncertainties such that within total
uncertainties the closure will validate this method. Overall it looks
good. May be we can discuss later on this topic.
>

>> _"embedding jets into 2 statistically independent samples " -> what
>> are
>> those 2 statistical ind. samples? Need some explanation.
>
>  I added slides 27-28 to clarify this. The statistically independent
> samples are drawn randomly from matched jet pairs from PYTHIA and
> embedding.
>
Can you please inform me why do we need these two samples?

>> _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?
>
> I would say that the systematic uncertainty is roughly the same
> between RooUnfold and MultiFold, just by eyeballing the error band
> sizes on slide 30.
Good.
>
>> _I think it is important to show right plot with "STAR preliminary".
>
> (Now on slide 31). I also put the figure here:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/20_25_all_err2_0925.pdf
>
>> _"Wider jets tend to have lower |Q|" -> how do you get this
>> conclusion?
>
> Since I used a track-pT-weighted definition of jet charge, a high pT
> track will tend to make jet |Q| larger. And if a track has a high pT
> within a jet, it is likely to be in roughly the same direction as the
> jet, so the jet is more likely to be collimated, so collimated jets
> tend to have large |Q| and wider jets tend to have lower |Q|.
>
OK, then you need to use followings.
In this slide:
"... increasing pT" -> "increasing jet pT"

Here you need to mention " jet pT" and "constituent pT of a jet" in this
slide.



>> _ "Different fragmentation patter" -> do you mean it is because of
>> their
>> different jet Mass?
>
> (Now on slide 33). I meant that it's because of both their jet mass
> and charge. I think jet charge also relates to fragmentation since it
> contains information about the track pT's.
>
OK.


Thank you
Nihar


> Best,
> Youqi
>
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 2:01 PM Youqi Song <youqi.song AT yale.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi Barbara and Nihar,
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestions! I will respond to the comments and
>> update a new version of slides by tomorrow. Nihar, since you suggest
>> that I show the uncertainty plot as a preliminary figure, I remade
>> it and attached it to this email. Please let me know if you have any
>> comments for this figure.
>>
>> Best,
>> Youqi
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 10:17 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l
>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Star-hp-l mailing list
>>> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l