STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi conveners,

Looks like everyone has signed off? Could you please push it to star-talks? Thank you!

Best,

Youqi

On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 9:30 PM Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Youqi,

Thanks a lot for the updated version. I don't have any further comments.

Cheers,

Yi

On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 10:34 PM Youqi Song <youqi.song AT yale.edu> wrote:

Hi Nihar and Yi,

I have implemented your suggestions in my slides and uploaded a new version to drupal.

Best,

Youqi

On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 7:05 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

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.
>>
>>>> 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