STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Done,

Cheers,

Barbara

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 8:59 PM Tong Liu via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Yi,

Could you please also add my QM prelim plots onto your link? I also uploaded the current version of our HG-PYTHIA curve in the link. Thanks!

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/tongliu/QM2022-Prelim-Plot-Request-0

Tong Liu

Ph.D. Student '2023 

Physics Dept., Yale University

Tel: 203-435-2130

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 2:15 PM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

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$
_______________________________________________
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