STAR HardProbes PWG

[Youqi Song <youqi.song AT yale.edu>]

Hi Nihar,

How about we use the term "mistagged jet"? i.e., we mistag the jet (at detector level) as having two leading charged particles, but at truth level one of the leading/subleading particles is neutral.

Best,

Youqi

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 12:41 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

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