star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: STAR HardProbes PWG

List archive

Re: [Star-hp-l] (Reschedule to have) HP-pwg meeting this week

From: Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
To: Yi Yang <yiyang AT ncku.edu.tw>
Cc: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] (Reschedule to have) HP-pwg meeting this week
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2022 23:43:40 +0530

Hello Yi,

Thank you for making this. I had plan to work on this but I could not get time last 2-3 days to work on it. OK, we will keep updating this page then.

Regards
Nihar

On 2022-10-06 23:14, Yi Yang wrote:

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 [2]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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]

[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

Links:
------
[1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1611419615?pwd=VW1hNm43ZDd5d2EvK2R4aEJsQ2ZNZz09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!GYrG8HeLs755Yjvk1r_QNaxihlBHdWrp7lHH5H67qV8PQkgtAnQitCQFLry1fzryj88uJkNjns5bpgq4KfgEcXP2$
[2] https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/*yiyang__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!GYrG8HeLs755Yjvk1r_QNaxihlBHdWrp7lHH5H67qV8PQkgtAnQitCQFLry1fzryj88uJkNjns5bpgq4KcIBy6Bw$

Re: [Star-hp-l] (Reschedule to have) HP-pwg meeting this week, Youqi Song, 10/01/2022
- Re: [Star-hp-l] (Reschedule to have) HP-pwg meeting this week, Nihar Sahoo, 10/02/2022
  - Re: [Star-hp-l] (Reschedule to have) HP-pwg meeting this week, Yi Yang, 10/06/2022
    - Re: [Star-hp-l] (Reschedule to have) HP-pwg meeting this week, Nihar Sahoo, 10/06/2022
      - Re: [Star-hp-l] (Reschedule to have) HP-pwg meeting this week, Tong Liu, 10/06/2022
        
        Re: [Star-hp-l] (Reschedule to have) HP-pwg meeting this week, Barbara Trzeciak, 10/06/2022