STAR HardProbes PWG

[Yi Yang <yiyang AT ncku.edu.tw>]

Hi Youqi and Nihar,

I put these nice results and plots in the HP preliminary page: 

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/pwg/Hard-Probes/HP-PWG-Preliminary-plots

Cheers,

Yi

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yi Yang, Associate Professor
Department of Physics
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, 701 Taiwan
E-Mail: yiyang AT ncku.edu.tw
Tel: +886-6-2757575 ext.65237
Fax: +886-6-2747995
Group Web: http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/~yiyang
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 9:20 PM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Youqi,

Yes, it is ok from my side.
And thank you for creating this link.
I have entered your preliminary results in this link:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/pwg/jet-correlations/jetcorr-pwg-preliminary-plots

Cheers
Nihar

On 2022-10-02 00:31, Youqi Song wrote:
> Hi Nihar,
>
> I assume these plots are approved now? I created a post just with the
> plots:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/youqi/Multidimensional-jet-substructure-measurement-unfolded-machine-learning-method-200-GeV-pp
> , so you could link them to the list of preliminary plots from HP PWG.
> Thanks!
>
> Best,
> Youqi
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 12:54 PM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Youqi,
>>
>> Please find my replies inline.
>>
>> On 2022-09-28 20:41, Youqi Song wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Interesting, let's discuss this after HQ conference. For STAR
>> preliminary, it is Ok what you have.
>> Please remind us these topics in your next presentations.
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> All your plots look great.
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>> Ok.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Nihar
>>
>>>
>>> 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]
>>>>>>>> [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$
>>>
>>>
>>> Links:
>>> ------
>>> [1]
>>>
>>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1611419615?pwd=VW1hNm43ZDd5d2EvK2R4aEJsQ2ZNZz09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!Cq5FUOmAj3PN2Z2A5doGpW0_GsQ-JMSRIqVT7tKFziK5UUn-rmtfReO_1IZvOXbuQNvpyjzPlnmfM4gk5dYkJ3QYFA$
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1611419615?pwd=VW1hNm43ZDd5d2EvK2R4aEJsQ2ZNZz09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!Gmge_6YcSKwWHabAw4Et6eLDY7bG02r2iZvyCTcV40PfLyWnc_84hGgSQMEzCW57HaeAjzL6CVl8c09MtojayzpBlA$
_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l