STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hello Youqi,

Thank you for your answering my queries.
I don't have any further comments. It is good to see your analysis 
results with STAR preliminary.

I sign off.


Cheers
Nihar


On 2022-10-06 02:05, Youqi Song wrote:
> Hi Nihar, Yi and Barbara,
>
> I implemented your suggestions in the updated slides:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/hq_101522_v4.pdf
> I also moved several slides to backup in the interest of time.
>
> Response to Nihar's comments:
>
> > 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.
>
> Just to clarify, for systematic uncertainty of the closure test, it
> would just be the difference in closure between the nominal procedure
> and for example unfolding with a Herwig prior, correct? I included in
> slide 42 (in backup) the closure when unfolding with Herwig mass and
> charge weights. I chose to look at the Herwig weight variation for
> closure since it is for most cases the largest source of systematic
> uncertainty in data. In any case, I moved all the closure test slides
> to backup to fit in the 15 min of time, and I think the agreement with
> the RooUnfold result is also proof that MultiFold works.
>
> > Can you please inform me why do we need these two samples?
>
> For closure test, one sample serves as prior, and the other serves as
> pseudodata and truth-level information to be compared with the
> unfolded. I think this is the same procedure used for other people's
> analyses.
>
> Best,
> Youqi
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 7:03 AM 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