STAR HardProbes PWG

[Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>]

Hi Grant,

Ah... cool! Thanks a lot for the explanation. 

I don't have any further comments on your nice results and slides.

Cheers.

Yi

On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 11:40 PM Grant McNamara <grantmcnamara AT wayne.edu> wrote:

Hi Yi,

Thank you for the comment. All the other individual fractions are correct, but this is intended to simply serve as a proof of principle for the template fitting that we plan to apply to data.

Best,

Grant

---

From: Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2022 11:09 AM
To: Grant McNamara <grantmcnamara AT wayne.edu>
Cc: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>; Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>; Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Grant McNamara for DNP 2022 submitted for review

 

Hi Grant,

Thanks a lot for the updated version and they look great.

However, I still have a bit of concern about the fitting: you mentioned that at least the gluon fraction is accurately obtained from the fit. Does this imply that the correctness of other fractions are not important for now (did I misinterpret it)? The gluon fraction is correct, maybe just "lucky"? I would list all fit results with errors and compare them to the truth fractions, then mention that there are rooms to improve the results. 

What you are planning to do probably is okay, so just for your consideration.

Cheers,

Yi

On Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 3:09 AM Grant McNamara <grantmcnamara AT wayne.edu> wrote:

Hi Yi,

Thank you for your helpful comments. I will address these below.

I have removed the bullet including "collides p+p beams..." from slides 6 and 7 and have added the data set and cuts information to a slide in the backup.

For slides 11, 12 the MC refers to the pythia-6, pythia-8 shown in the top panels, since I show two of these, I have generalized the axis to MC/data. I think two slides are preferable for this because the two statements are not related to each other so to avoid implying a connection a second slide is useful.

On slide 14, I have added to the last bullet indicating that the fractions listed that are the results from fitting the templates to pythia-8 are consistent with the true fractions. The main message I want to convey here is that at least the gluon fraction is accurately obtained from the fit, so I think only gluon fraction listed should be sufficient. The black is the sum of these three, red, blue, green, plus the contributions from partons not shown, but these contributions not shown are fixed to their pythia-8 true fraction, similar to the CMS publication referenced.

Please find the updated slides attached to this email.

Best,
Grant

---

From: Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 1:20 PM
To: Grant McNamara <grantmcnamara AT wayne.edu>; STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Cc: Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>; Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Grant McNamara for DNP 2022 submitted for review

 

Hi Grant,

Thanks a lot for the very nice slides. I only have a few minor comments/suggestions for your consideration. 

  - p6, p7: it is a bit strange to put "collides p+p beams at sqrt(s) = 200 GeV" here.

  - before p8: It would be good to have a slide to list your data set, selection cuts and some details (previous "collides p+p beams at sqrt(s) = 200 GeV" can be put here).

   - p11, p12: the bottom panel, MC/data, which MC is used here? 

                     Does it make sense to merge these two pages to one since the plots are the same? Totally up to you.

   - p14: Since it is using PYTHIA-8 as the "data", it should be able to obtain the true quark/glue fractions, right? How does it compare to the fit results? Can you list the fit results on the plot?

             Or do I misunderstand this plot, the black line is just the sum of blue, red, and green? 

Cheers,

Yi

  

On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 2:06 AM Grant McNamara via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Barbara,

Thank you for the helpful comments. I have added the kappa value to the axis label on my figures to make this clearer, especially in the future when I show more than one kappa value as you pointed out. I have addressed all of your comments and regarding s15 I have removed specific reference to pythia-6 templates and generalized to monte carlo to avoid this confusion. The reason we do not show the pythia-6 templates is that we currently do not have access to the parton information in pythia-6. I have attached the updated slides here and will post them to drupal shortly.

Best,
Grant McNamara

---

From: Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 4:19 AM
To: Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>; STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Cc: Grant McNamara <grantmcnamara AT wayne.edu>
Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Grant McNamara for DNP 2022 submitted for review

 

Hi Grant,

please find below my comments to your nice slides.

General:

- Please improve the quality of the figures.

- Going back to Nihar's comment on kappa, I think it's important to add this information to the preliminary plots. It's true that you mention it at the beginning of your presentation, but plots can be taken later by other people. Also, we should be able to distinguish it once you have later results for other kappa values.

-s5: increase size of the figure

-s12: Mean shifts to from -> Mean shifts from

-s13: the CMS paper is published, please change the reference to the journal and add "CMS"

-s14: Gluon initiated jet fraction -> PYTHIA-8 Monash: Gluon initiated jet fraction (to avoid potential confusion that the numbers are obtained from our data)

-s15: Use PYTHIA-6 - on s14 you show PYTHIA 8 when you discuss template fitting, which one you're planning to use ?

Cheers,

Barbara

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 5:03 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Grant,

Thank you for your reply and implementing my comments.
I have no further comments and I sign off.

Enjoy DNP!

Cheers
Nihar

On 2022-10-18 06:27, Grant McNamara wrote:
> Hi Nihar,
>
>  I have only shown figures for k = 0.0 in these slides, as it is a 10
> minute talk this is all I will have time to show so I did not see a
> need to list the k value repeatedly. I have made a point to show that
> the Q_jet label corresponds to the Q for k = 0.0, hopefully this will
> make this clearer.
>
>  The cartoon on slide 2 is meant just as a generic illustration of the
> jet production.
>
>  I have included the reference to AuAu because this is still one of
> the main motivations of performing this analysis in pp as well.
>
>  The systematics follow the jet mass figures previously shown so to
> keep consistency with this analysis I think it makes sense to keep
> these on a linear scale. The systematics that are not visible are also
> small. In a publication of this analysis I will provide a table.
>
>  I have not shown any fit to data, this is a fit to pythia-8 using the
> templates from pythia-8. I have clarified this on the slide as well.
>
>  I have made all the requested changes to plots other than adding k =
> 0.0, as I previously mentioned I expect that a clarification on slide
> 5 that Q_jet refers to k = 0.0 will be sufficient.
>
>  Best,
> Grant McNamara
>
> -------------------------
>
> From: Star-hp-l <star-hp-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of Nihar
> Sahoo via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 2:34 AM
> To: webmaster AT star.bnl.gov <webmaster AT star.bnl.gov>; STAR HardProbes
> PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Grant McNamara for DNP
> 2022 submitted for review
>
> [EXTERNAL]
>
> Hello Grant,
>
> Please find my comments on your nice presentation slides.
> I like your Slide#5,13,14 Pythia jet charge plot. Are the κ values
> the
> same as your pp data?
>
> Slide2: Just a comment on your right side cartoon. Is there any
> relevance of showing jet2,3 in opposite side to your jet charge
> measurement?
>
> Slide3: Infrared, collinear safe -> Infrared-collinear safe or
> Infrared
> and collinear safe
>
> SLide4: "The energy loss in AuAu collisions depends on the flavor of
> parton" -> It seems out of the context here as you are focusing on jet
> charge in pp collisions; you could mention one motivation for
> heavy-ion
> collisions related to jet charge. Is not it? (Comment: so far no
> modification in jet-charge is seen in heavy-ion—at least at the LHC)
>
> Slide5: In plot: mention what collision energy and p+p collisions,
> etc?
> Is this the same "κ=0" value used in the data?
>
> Slide8:
> _Make your y-axis label up to -0.1 so that lower cutoff data points
> can
> be visible (similarly for other plots)
> _ Please mention what "κ" value is used? Better would be in legend
>
> Slide9:
> _Give reference of RooUnfold;
> _right slide plot, X-Y axises title should be jet pT (please make
> changes).
> _Q depends on pT -> Q depends on jet pT
> _Requires 4D response -> Requires 4D response for 2D unfolding
>
> Slide10: Do you think it would be good to show semi-log scale (y-axis)
> for right side plot? So that all systematic contributions can be
> visible
> clearly. In the linear scale Hadronic corrections, not see at all.
>
> Slide11:
> _Make your y-axis label up to -0.1 so that lower cutoff data points
> can
> be visible (similarly for other plots)
> _ Please mention what "κ" value is used? Better would be in legend
>
> Slide12:
> "Mean shifts to from ~0.22 to ~0.33" -> Do you mean with increasing
> jet
> pT window? Then rephrase "Mean shifts from ~0.22 to ~0.33 with
> increasing jet pT"
> _ Please mention what "κ" value is used? Better would be in legend
>
> Slide13:
> _If your  "κ" value is different than that you used in data, then it
> would be good to have a comment/statement on it.
> _ Can you please elaborate "Normalized Templates" ? Do you it is
> normalized per jet?
>
> Slide14:
> _ Can you please elaborate "Fit results" ? Have you done any fitting
> with the data on slide12-13? It needs some explanation here.
>
> Slide15:
> _Not clear "Different jet resolution parameter R values"; please
> explain.
> _Provide constraint on quark vs gluon fraction value to improve
> simulation - > do you really mean to improve "simulation" here?
>
> Cheers
> Nihar
>
> On 2022-10-16 21:48, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l wrote:
>> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>
>> Grant McNamara (grantmcnamara AT wayne.edu) has submitted a material
> for a
>> review, please have a look:
>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/61349
>>
>> Deadline: 2022-10-27
>> ---
>> 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
_______________________________________________
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