star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: STAR HardProbes PWG
List archive
[Star-hp-l] Notes for PWGC preview (03/17/2023): Measurement of collinear drop jet mass and its correlation with substructure observables in pp collisions
- From: "Ma, Rongrong" <marr AT bnl.gov>
- To: STAR Papers Discussion List <starpapers-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, "STAR HardProbes PWG" <Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, STAR PWG Convener List <star-pwgc-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
- Subject: [Star-hp-l] Notes for PWGC preview (03/17/2023): Measurement of collinear drop jet mass and its correlation with substructure observables in pp collisions
- Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2023 00:46:02 +0000
Date: 03/17/2023
Participants: Youqi Song, Raghav Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, Helen Caines, Ting Lin, Xiaoxuan Chu, Maria Zurek, Shuai Yang, Yue Hang Leung, Nihar Sahoo, Barbara Trzeciak, Hanna Zbroszczyk, Prithwish Tribedy, Takafumi Niida, Rongrong Ma
Title: Measurement of collinear drop jet mass and its correlation with substructure observables in pp collisions
PAs: Helen Caines, Raghav Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, Youqi Song
Target journal: PRL
Proposal page: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/youqi/Measurement-collinear-drop-jet-mass-and-its-correlation-groomed-jet-substructure-observab
Presentation: SLIDES
The PWGC panel previewed a paper from HP PWG. The panel found that analysis is mature and the paper should move forward, and the target journal is appropriate. The following points were discussed.
(Q: question, A: answer, C: comment)
s9
Q: do you embed the PYTHIA simulation into zero-bias events when generating response matrix?
A: yes, we use the official embedding into zero-bias events.
Q: do you embed the PYTHIA simulation into zero-bias events when generating response matrix?
A: yes, we use the official embedding into zero-bias events.
s12
C: the right figure is compared to PYTHIA6 while such a comparison is not shown in any other figures. Suggest to be consistent.
C: the right figure is compared to PYTHIA6 while such a comparison is not shown in any other figures. Suggest to be consistent.
s13
Q: in the left figure, the left box is for dM = 0, but the middle box also starts from 0. Why?
A: even though the x-axis label starts at 0 for the middle box, dM = 0 entries are not included in it. Will figure out a way to make it clear.
C: here dM/M distributions are showed for different Rg ranges, while zg distributions are shown for different dM ranges. Suggest to show Rg distributions for different dM selections as well to be consistent with zg. This should help the flow of the paper.
Q: in the left figure, the left box is for dM = 0, but the middle box also starts from 0. Why?
A: even though the x-axis label starts at 0 for the middle box, dM = 0 entries are not included in it. Will figure out a way to make it clear.
C: here dM/M distributions are showed for different Rg ranges, while zg distributions are shown for different dM ranges. Suggest to show Rg distributions for different dM selections as well to be consistent with zg. This should help the flow of the paper.
s14
Q: you mentioned that the zg distribution becomes steeper by selecting smaller dM values. How significant is that?
A: if one compares the case of dM = 0 and dM/M > 0.2, the difference is quite signifiant.
Q: you mentioned that the zg distribution becomes steeper by selecting smaller dM values. How significant is that?
A: if one compares the case of dM = 0 and dM/M > 0.2, the difference is quite signifiant.
s15
Q: here you also mentioned that the zg distribution for dM = 0 is steeper than the first split (right figure). Is it significant?
A: it looks like so qualitatively, but we can get some quantitative numbers. Furthermore, the sum of the three curves in the left figure should be equal to the first split zg distribution in the right figure. Since the three curves have different steepness, some of them should be steeper than the first split zg.
C: while it is true that one can filter out jets with large non-perturbative contribution by selecting dM = 0, it seems to be more efficient by selecting large Rg values as shown on slide 16. Suggest to think about how to phrase this in the paper.
Q: here you also mentioned that the zg distribution for dM = 0 is steeper than the first split (right figure). Is it significant?
A: it looks like so qualitatively, but we can get some quantitative numbers. Furthermore, the sum of the three curves in the left figure should be equal to the first split zg distribution in the right figure. Since the three curves have different steepness, some of them should be steeper than the first split zg.
C: while it is true that one can filter out jets with large non-perturbative contribution by selecting dM = 0, it seems to be more efficient by selecting large Rg values as shown on slide 16. Suggest to think about how to phrase this in the paper.
s17
C: here you mention "improving our understanding of jet substructure". But PYTHIA8 tune seems to match data quite well, which means we already understand the substructure(?) Need to think about how to phrase this in the paper
C: here you mention "improving our understanding of jet substructure". But PYTHIA8 tune seems to match data quite well, which means we already understand the substructure(?) Need to think about how to phrase this in the paper
s36
Q: have you tried other approaches of closure test, such as using different generators?
A: we tried using PYTHIA and HERWIG as different inputs for training and testing. The closure is not as good as the current one. Such a difference is included in the uncertainty when the prior distribution is varied.
Q: have you tried other approaches of closure test, such as using different generators?
A: we tried using PYTHIA and HERWIG as different inputs for training and testing. The closure is not as good as the current one. Such a difference is included in the uncertainty when the prior distribution is varied.
- [Star-hp-l] Notes for PWGC preview (03/17/2023): Measurement of collinear drop jet mass and its correlation with substructure observables in pp collisions, Ma, Rongrong, 03/17/2023
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.