STAR HardProbes PWG

["Yi Yang" <yiyang429 AT gate.sinica.edu.tw>]

Hi Neil,

Thanks for the nice request. It is very clear and I don't have any comments on it!

Cheers,

Yi

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yi Yang, Research Fellow
Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica 
E-Mail: yiyang429 AT gate.sinica.edu.tw 
Tel: +886-2-2789-6709
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original message-----




From:Diptanil Roy<roydiptanil AT gmail.com>
To:Mooney, Isaac<isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>
Cc:张炜<wzhang AT m.scnu.edu.cn>,Tamis, Andrew<andrew.tamis AT yale.edu>,Sooraj Radhakrishnan<skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov>,Brennan Schaefer<brs521 AT lehigh.edu>,Song, Youqi<youqi.song AT yale.edu>,STAR HardProbes PWG<star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>,Yi Yang<yiyang429 AT gate.sinica.edu.tw>,Nihar Sahoo<nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>,tc88qy<tc88qy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
Date:  Wed, 18 Sep 2024 06:39:42
Subject: Re: [[Star-hp-l] ] Preliminary requests

Hi Isaac, thank you for your thorough comments. Please find my responses below:

9. When you say "roughly the same", how close is this, quantitatively?

The difference between the relative uncertainties (for FONLL and data-weighted priors) is less than a percent.

10. 
The R = 0.4 spectra are without Barlow test, right? I.e. they are the old preliminaries, since we are only updating the existing spectra as they enter the double ratio?
Don't forget to add the STAR preliminary label to the plots.

I am no longer asking for preliminaries for the spectra as functions of the radii. I have structured the talk as such that those plots alone don't add a lot of context. The plots with the ratio are Barlow tested.

11. 
Just a small aesthetic comment: the 0-10%/40-80% label seems to kind of come from nowhere. Maybe say something like "R_CP = 0-10%/..." so it has more of a context.
Caption: I think by pT-hat you mean the direction of the jet, but it's confusing because we mean something else by pT-hat usually. Please modify for clarity.

Done. 

13. Can you remind me why the R = 0.2 systematic uncertainties are so much larger than the R = 0.3? I see from the later slides that this is driven by the prior variation uncertainty, and I think we discussed this in a meeting, but I can't remember the explanation.

 

Pretty much what you mentioned. The prior variation uncertainty for central (where the effect of the different prior has the most effect) for R = 0.2 is significantly larger than R = 0.3 (Slide 15,16 of the new preliminary slides I attached below). That's what drives the large unc.

16. 
Why does it seem that the last few pT-jet bins in the peripheral case don't have uncertainties in addition to the prior variation?

These are residual systematics post Barlow test. The other systematic sources do not contribute beyond the statistical fluctuation (expected as the statistical unc. is huge for those bins).

Also it seems like there is a strong fluctuation downward at 14 GeV in some cases in these plots (middle panel here, bottom middle and bottom right on the next slide; also one that fluctuates up: top right on next slide). Does this end up being addressed by the Barlow check? Looking at s. 19 and 20 it seems that uncertainty is reduced somewhat in this bin for the peripheral case, but the mid-central where it also seems to be an issue doesn't really seem to change via the Barlow test.

Again, since these are residual systematics, the bin-by-bin fluctuation is not necessarily always driven in a particular direction. These are just fluctuations based on how many sources contribute additional variation over the statistical fluctuation.

In addition to this, I followed Nihar's suggestion and applied the relative systematic uncertainty of the next bin for cases where none of the sources contribute any systematic variation beyond the statistical uncertainty. This only affects 2 bins in the RCP (R = 0.4)/RCP (R = 0.3) plot. Slides 10-11 shows the effect of this correction.

Please find the new version attached below.

On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 4:40 PM Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu> wrote:

Hi Neil,

Please see my comments below on your preliminary request slides. With these addressed, I sign off.

Thanks,

Isaac

9. When you say "roughly the same", how close is this, quantitatively?

10. 

The R = 0.4 spectra are without Barlow test, right? I.e. they are the old preliminaries, since we are only updating the existing spectra as they enter the double ratio?

Don't forget to add the STAR preliminary label to the plots.

11. 

Just a small aesthetic comment: the 0-10%/40-80% label seems to kind of come from nowhere. Maybe say something like "R_CP = 0-10%/..." so it has more of a context.

Caption: I think by pT-hat you mean the direction of the jet, but it's confusing because we mean something else by pT-hat usually. Please modify for clarity.

13. Can you remind me why the R = 0.2 systematic uncertainties are so much larger than the R = 0.3? I see from the later slides that this is driven by the prior variation uncertainty, and I think we discussed this in a meeting, but I can't remember the explanation. 

16. 

Why does it seem that the last few pT-jet bins in the peripheral case don't have uncertainties in addition to the prior variation?

Also it seems like there is a strong fluctuation downward at 14 GeV in some cases in these plots (middle panel here, bottom middle and bottom right on the next slide; also one that fluctuates up: top right on next slide). Does this end up being addressed by the Barlow check? Looking at s. 19 and 20 it seems that uncertainty is reduced somewhat in this bin for the peripheral case, but the mid-central where it also seems to be an issue doesn't really seem to change via the Barlow test.

On Sep 10, 2024, at 15:42, Diptanil Roy <roydiptanil AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Isaac, please find my preliminary presentation attached. The only follow-up for my case would be to probably implement Nihar's suggestion for treating the systematic errors in the case where they are 0% because of the Barlow Test. I am still not fully convinced that we should artificially change the systematics, but we are discussing internally. Other than that, we should be all set.

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 3:10 PM Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu> wrote:

Hi Hard Probes presenters,

I would appreciate it if you could reply to this message with a link to your preliminary request slides (if applicable) and a sentence or two describing any follow-ups you are currently implementing from previous meeting discussions before preliminary status can be given, as well as an estimate for the time/date when you will send a final set of request slides. Sorry to those of you who have already sent slides in some form to other email chains — it would just be helpful for the conveners if we could collect the latest and most up-to-date links all in one place as we review.

Thanks,
Isaac

--

~ Neil

--

~ Neil