star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: STAR HardProbes PWG
List archive
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Youqi Song for BOOST 2023 submitted for review
- From: Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
- To: Youqi Song <youqi.song AT yale.edu>
- Cc: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
- Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Youqi Song for BOOST 2023 submitted for review
- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 16:34:56 +0530
Hi Youqi,
It sounds reasonable. Please mention also in that slide what is "mistagged jet" in your case?
With this implemented, I sign off.
Cheers
Nihar
On 2023-07-20 21:51, Youqi Song wrote:
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.
phraseSlide16: "this is a fake jet" -> "fake jet" is not a correct
arethis
context. You could use something else like "unused jets" . These
oftrue jet but you are not using in your r_c observable.
I still think this jet should be considered "fake" for the purpose
this analysis. The jet shouldn’t be included for rc analysissince
at truth level, one of its leading dihadrons is a neutralparticle.
However, we won't be able to know that from data, so it ends upbeing
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,new
Thanks for the comments. I have implemented them and uploaded a
version on drupal.this
Slide4: "... and in a" -> Not sure if it has any meaning.
Here I am trying to emphasize that the two measurements shown on
slide are multi-differential measurements, as opposed to theinclusive
measurements shown on slide 3.phrase
Slide16: "this is a fake jet" -> "fake jet" is not a correct
arethis
context. You could use something else like "unused jets" . These
oftrue jet but you are not using in your r_c observable.
I still think this jet should be considered "fake" for the purpose
this analysis. The jet shouldn’t be included for rc analysissince
at truth level, one of its leading dihadrons is a neutralparticle.
However, we won't be able to know that from data, so it ends upbeing
incorrectly included for the analysis. I have added a sentence to<nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
explain this on the slide as well.
Best,
Youqi
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 9:35 AM Nihar Sahoo
wrote:small
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
phrase
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
arethis
context. You could use something else like "unused jets" . These
generic.
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
onUp
to you.
Cheers
Nihar
On 2023-07-19 01:41, Youqi Song via Star-hp-l wrote:
Hi Isaac,version
Thanks for the comments and reminders! I have uploaded a new
of slides on drupal.institutional
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
text,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
justifiedbut it should be explained that a trivial weaker zcut is
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
wouldthe
correction method. So “RooUnfolded/MultiFolded result”
forgetbe
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
p_Tto
remove it from the plot.
16. “fluctuation”; “neutral energy measurement for jet
abelow 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
contactreview,
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
_______________________________________________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
-
[Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Youqi Song for BOOST 2023 submitted for review,
webmaster, 07/17/2023
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Youqi Song for BOOST 2023 submitted for review,
Mooney, Isaac, 07/17/2023
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Youqi Song for BOOST 2023 submitted for review,
Youqi Song, 07/18/2023
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Youqi Song for BOOST 2023 submitted for review,
Nihar Sahoo, 07/19/2023
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Youqi Song for BOOST 2023 submitted for review,
Youqi Song, 07/19/2023
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Youqi Song for BOOST 2023 submitted for review,
Nihar Sahoo, 07/20/2023
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Youqi Song for BOOST 2023 submitted for review,
Youqi Song, 07/20/2023
- Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Youqi Song for BOOST 2023 submitted for review, Nihar Sahoo, 07/21/2023
- Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Youqi Song for BOOST 2023 submitted for review, Youqi Song, 07/21/2023
- Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Youqi Song for BOOST 2023 submitted for review, Yi Yang, 07/21/2023
- Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Youqi Song for BOOST 2023 submitted for review, Youqi Song, 07/24/2023
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Youqi Song for BOOST 2023 submitted for review,
Youqi Song, 07/20/2023
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Youqi Song for BOOST 2023 submitted for review,
Nihar Sahoo, 07/20/2023
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Youqi Song for BOOST 2023 submitted for review,
Youqi Song, 07/19/2023
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Youqi Song for BOOST 2023 submitted for review,
Nihar Sahoo, 07/19/2023
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Youqi Song for BOOST 2023 submitted for review,
Youqi Song, 07/18/2023
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Youqi Song for BOOST 2023 submitted for review,
Mooney, Isaac, 07/17/2023
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.