STAR HardProbes PWG

[Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Hi Youqi,

I fine with your reply except following.

> > Slide16: "this is a fake jet" -> "fake jet" is not a correct phrase
> > this
> > context. You could use something else like "unused jets" . These are
> > true jet but you are not using in your r_c observable.
>
> I still think this jet should be considered "fake" for the purpose of
> this analysis. The jet shouldn’t be included for rc analysis since
> at truth level, one of its leading dihadrons is a neutral particle.
> However, we won't be able to know that from data, so it ends up being
> incorrectly included for the analysis. I have added a sentence to
> explain this on the slide as well.

I disagree, the argument is:
This is not a "fake" jet. you are discarding it in your calculation that 
doesn't mean you should call it "fake" jet. They are "real jet" with 
high pT. The "r_c" observable may not be reconstructed for this case 
when you have a leading/subleading neutral constituent.

If we don't correct this nomenclature, it would create unnecessary 
confusion in your analysis for future discussion and would be a 
misleading. So I advise to adopt better wording.

Thank you
Nihar


On 2023-07-20 01:04, Youqi Song wrote:
> Hi Nihar,
>
> Thanks for the comments. I have implemented them and uploaded a new
> version on drupal.
>
> > Slide4: "... and in a" -> Not sure if it has any meaning.
>
> Here I am trying to emphasize that the two measurements shown on this
> slide are multi-differential measurements, as opposed to the inclusive
> measurements shown on slide 3.
>
> > Slide16: "this is a fake jet" -> "fake jet" is not a correct phrase
> > this
> > context. You could use something else like "unused jets" . These are
> > true jet but you are not using in your r_c observable.
>
> I still think this jet should be considered "fake" for the purpose of
> this analysis. The jet shouldn’t be included for rc analysis since
> at truth level, one of its leading dihadrons is a neutral particle.
> However, we won't be able to know that from data, so it ends up being
> incorrectly included for the analysis. I have added a sentence to
> explain this on the slide as well.
>
> Best,
> Youqi
>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 9:35 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Youqi,
> >
> > Thank your for your nice slides on jet substructure measurement.
> >
> > Please find my comment below.
> >
> > Slide4: "... and in a" -> Not sure if it has any meaning.
> > References are too small to see. For example "STAR. DIS 2021"
> >
> > Make "CollinearDrop" consistent everywhere, Some places you write
> > "collinear drop". Please check this out.
> >
> > Slide14:
> > "Jets with a more DGLAP-like splitting are more likely to have small
> >
> > early-stage radiation" -> where did you discuss about "DGLAP"?  I
> > could
> > not find.
> >
> > Slide16: "this is a fake jet" -> "fake jet" is not a correct phrase
> > this
> > context. You could use something else like "unused jets" . These are
> >
> > true jet but you are not using in your r_c observable.
> >
> > Slide17:
> > "..have a unique sensitivity for non-perturbative effects"  ->
> > Trying to
> > understand what exactly you want to say here.
> > This slide you may end up with some open questions or a bit generic.
> > Up
> > to you.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Nihar
> >
> > On 2023-07-19 01:41, Youqi Song via Star-hp-l wrote:
> > > Hi Isaac,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the comments and reminders! I have uploaded a new
> > version
> > > of slides on drupal.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Youqi
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 6:04 PM Mooney, Isaac via Star-hp-l
> > > <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Youqi,
> > > >
> > > > It looks like you addressed my comments from today’s
> > institutional
> > > > practice, so I only have a few remaining ones. With these
> > > > implemented, I sign off.
> > > >
> > > > Enjoy Berkeley!
> > > > -Isaac
> > > >
> > > > 5. If you plan to say it verbally, then no need to add it as
> > text,
> > > > but it should be explained that a trivial weaker zcut is
> > justified
> > > > because the UE contribution to jets in pp is small.
> > > >
> > > > 9. I still think "MultiFold result" and "RooUnfold result" are
> > > > strange constructions. These are physics results, not results on
> > the
> > > > correction method. So “RooUnfolded/MultiFolded result” would
> > be
> > > > fine, similar to what you have at the bottom of the slide.
> > > >
> > > > 15. If you don’t get the Herwig before the talk, don’t forget
> > to
> > > > remove it from the plot.
> > > >
> > > > 16. “fluctuation”; “neutral energy measurement for jet p_T
> > > > below 20 GeV”; This “(smaller effect)” is also probably a
> > > > distraction from the discussion you want to have and could be
> > > > removed. I’ll leave it up to you.
> > > >
> > > > > On Jul 17, 2023, at 3:45 PM, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l
> > > > <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> > > > > Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
> > > > >
> > > > > Youqi Song (youqi.song AT yale.edu) has submitted a material for a
> > > > review,
> > > > > please have a look:
> > > > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/64330
> > > > >
> > > > > Deadline: 2023-07-31
> > > > > ---
> > > > > If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
> > > > > webmaster@http://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