Actions taken on Iris Abt 17.8.2021 ================ Decisons on questions put to the EB on 28.8.2020 ======================================================== Questions and comments received from colleagues were sorted into a continous stream following the text by IA(editor)with comments from AMCS. The EB decided on the resulting editorial issues. Some original comments can be found at the end, behind the decisions. Strategy of EB and further procedure: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- All issues considered significant by people who commented were dicussed. "Difficult" issues are marked. [marked 我的天 ..... 我的天] The EB came to decisions as listed below. They have been implemented as indicated below. Durig he meeting, it was announced that the grids need to be corrected. ==> The analysis will have to be redone after corrected grids are available. =======> This was done and the draft was corrected accordingly. ==> A new draft will go to the EB for a meeting after the analysis is redone. =======> EB meeting: August 24 =======> Updated draft will be send to EB one week before meeting. For details on what was done to the draft, see below. =======> Collaboration will be informed through a talk: August 24, before EB. The update will focus on content! Textual comments will be considered at the reading. Exceptions: -- new title =======> was implemented -- typos =======> whatever was noticed was fixed -- obvious mistakes =======> whatever was noticed was fixed -- figure captions =======> were all updated to accomodate old&new plots. Actions on Draft: ================= The complete analyis had to be redone after the new grids from applfast became available in June 2021. =======> All plots were updated accordigly. =======> all numbers were updated accordingly. =======> Significant changes are marked in blue. Wishes on title: ---------------- 'Impact of jet production data at NNLO on the determination of HERAPDF2.0 parton distributions and on alpha_s(M_z)' [EL] 'Measurement of HERAPDF2.0 parton distributions and alpha_s at NNLO with HERA jet production data" [IK]' (editor: PDFs cannot be measured; alpha_s should be in the title) AMCS--how about 'extraction' rather than 'measurement' MS-- mesaurement --> determination ==> EB descision: 'Impact of jet production data on the NNLO determination of HERAPDF2.0 parton distributions and on alpha_s(M_z)' =======> The new title was implemented. Requests to change the analysis: -------------------------------- DH5 Line 139 : The momentum sumrule is an integral in x from 0 to 1. Given the conditions of our analysis the application of the momentum sumrule is useless and only introduces a bias. The reason is that an integration is required over the full range in x for all Q2. The behavior of the pdf at low x is unknown. Due to the triangular shape of the phase space the constraint for increasing Q2 is getting more and more uncertain, since there are no measurements for low x, while the parametric x -dependence merely reflects the evolved information from the low Q2-region. Therefore, drop the momentum sumrule. (editor: I don't think that the HERAPDF parameterisation and treatment can or should be changed at this point.) AMCS- We are not here to re-invent the wheel. The momentum-sum-rule has been investigated many years previously, e.g. Thorne. It is now standard to use it. Everybody believes in QCD we are no longer trying to challenge it but to use it. EB decision: change of analysis rejected restricting low x-gluon is necessary as there is no data DH will be answered in private. =======> Katarzyna had a long discussion with Dieter Phrases which attracted objections ----------------------------------- Even though it is explained in the text, there is a wish to have exp/fit everywhere [AG]. Is this okay for the EB? (editor: this would be good) AMCS-I dont care much EB decision: no -- keep experimental (abbreviated exp) =======> The editor followed this instruction. The question of tension has been with HERAPDF2.0 all along: AG:"The similarity of the chi2/d.o.f. values indicates that the addition of the jet data does not change the average level of tension in the data." Needs rephrasing towards "consistency" and "not more tension in jets than in inclusive data". Is this okay for the EB? (editor: this would be good) AMCS-fair enough EB discussion: the jets are actually better fitted than the inclusive data --> do not add tension to the fit --> jet data are fully consistent with inclusive data EB decision: What is written is okay: The jet data are consistent with the inclusive data. The fit quality is slightly improved after line 250. Editor: will go through what is written and check whether adjustments are needed. =======> implemented the exact phrases approved by the EB (also in summary) (also in comparison to data) The "negative gluon" term crept back, even though we should go back to "alternative gluon". Is this okay for the EB? (editor:this would be good) AMCS-fine EB decision: use alternative gluon =======> The alternative gluon parameterisation is the one which does not have this $A_g'$ term. The term "negative gluon" was taken out and the whole paragraph was adjusted to the new results. The conclusion stays the same. Missing strategy ---------------- Introduction should describe better what the strategy is [JG] (editor: would like to prepare something for update of draft adressing also the HF question) EB decsion: Iris should try to do this and distribute to EB (will do) =======> This was done and there was no complaint. The current draft has the corresponding paragraph in blue. Introduction ------------ J+NO do not want this to be the end. They want the HF data in the fit. ==> family is not complete DH6 wants a discussion why we do not fit HF data AMCS--not a discussion, just a comment please (editor: it is stated at the end of the data section that there are no complete NNLO predictions for HF and) AMCS--it was my understanding that our colleagues- particularly those who like the ABM fixed flavour scheme-- think that the NNLO is not complete for HF. Thorne, whose scheme we use, thinks it is 'complete enough' and certainly fits HF himself at NNLO. I never objected to its exclusion because we established early on that its addition made no discernable difference- apart from the Mc,Mb values. You will not find me ever doing a new PDF with it in. (editor: have a remark on this in the strategy there was a check that fitting HF data doesn't change anything. There is a HF paper with fits. =======> was done Is that okay for the EB? yes EB decision: family --> set EB decision: can keep completion of HERAPDF2.0 set of PDFs =======> cannot use set because set is used for the PDFs of each fit =======> used ensemble instead DH wants something on parameters--- (editor: we discuss what is needed at the appropriate place; in the introductions we state that we use the HERAPDF2.0 parameterisation) AMCS--these are the standard HERAPDF2.0 parameters, we did a check that they were still OKAY. EB decision: no add a sentence -- further details can be found --> reference add "many data points in a few parameters" =======> added two sentences at the end of the first paragraph in section 3.1. Structure ---------- SS: Section 4 and 5/6 should be swapped. First we determine PDFs with fixed alpha_s and compare to jets data. The free-alpha_s fits should come after that (same order as in the summary). [SS] (Editor: The editor does not consider this reasonable as then we have to use strange "forward pointing" to motivate the values that we use for alpha_s -- perhaps, the improvement of the introduction will make that more clear. -- adjust summary to textual structure) =======> done AMCS--I agree with the editor-- Is this okay for the EB? almost EB decision: make it one section "Results" or "Whatever comes up" and keep order as subsections -- Fit with free alpha_s 4.1 -- Fit with fixed alpha_s 4.2 -- comparison to data 4.3 =======> Done under protest! Created one section HERAPDF2.0Jets NNLO -- results and modified subsection titles. =======> eliminated subsubsection 4.1.1 on comparisons rewrote these paragraphs. Some would like more emphasis on alpha_s [EL], some want less emphasis[ZZ]. (editor: leave as is) Is this okay for the EB? yes =======> left it alone ==>DH5 This would basically mean to rewrite the 2015 paper. (editor: I think we agreed that we do not want this. Perhaps an even stronger sentence pointing at this paper is needed in the introduction when strategy [new] will be discussed} AMCS--YES I think we need to tell them it has all been done and published previously Is this okay for the EB? yes =======> Hope the modified introduction is enough. additional informtion/removals requested ----------------------------------------- AG: There is a wish that it is stated that the jets were obtained with the kt algorithm and R=1. Do the collaborations confirm that this is true in all cases? Collaborations: confirm! (editor: Needs confirmation by collaborations -- done) Is that okay for the EB? yes =======> added a sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the section on data. AG: Remind that it was established (cite arXiv:1003.2923) that at HERA, using the kt or anti-kt algorithms (as used at LHC) is qualitatively equivalent. EB decision: no =======> did do nothing The significant requests of JG to add information -- see below. Which of them are endorsed by the EB? EB decision: mostly requires answers to JG The significant requests by AL. Which of them are endorsed by the EB? EB decision: editor will discuss wih AL =======> J+NO would like comparsions of predictions to data points which were removed. (editor: I think they were removed because predictions make no sense. Most points were removed due to mu cut ==> no) EB discussion: MS: is against it -- we removed points for good reasons ==> comparison is not needed it would need a special section SS: seems to want that without a special section, adding points to existing figures MW: does not think it really interesting 2105 paper showed extrapolations to Q^2 < 3.5 GeV^2 IA: The Q^_min cut is not considered a boundary of validity, while the exclusion due to a mu cut is. MW+MS agree EB decision: no, we do not do that in the paper If it is not too much work, we might look at an enlarged plot internally. =======> plots for paper not changed It is too much work. NOTE: The selection of data could change due to a reduction of uncertainties at the edge of the phase space. This could also be solved by keeping the selection and just write X% instead of 10%. [The latter would be the simplest solution.] =======> The selection did change, but the arguments stayed the same. DH1: Figures 7 and 8 are the comparison between the new analysis and the old NNLO result. DH2: He wants tables of parameters and correlations. -- but seemingly a comparison for the two different alpha_s AMCS--I doubt that anybody is interested, but I think he meant our current correlation matrix for free alphas compared to a correlation matrix for free alphas for the inclusive only fit. He wants to see if the gluon/alphas correlation shows up more for inclusive alone. The answer is YES of course it does, this is the point of jets, everybody knows this, we don't HAVE to demonstrate it again, we are not writing a textbook. (editor: keep what we have and explain it to DH, if we have tables or correlations, they should be extra material) What does the EB want? EB decision: dump parameter tables and correlation parameters for all three central fits (alpha_s free, alpha_s=0.1xx, alpah_s=0.118) to an ascii file -- keep it as internal material -- decide t submission whether to make it "additional material" =======> done, internal material at the very end. scales: ------- 我的天 Should we keep scale uncertainties out of the abstract and summary to avoid the issue of correlations? Is this okay for the EB? Or can we quote our main result? -- wanted by some comments[EL,..] Or do we have to go back to both results? -- wanted by H1? What does the EB decide. (editor: would like main result) AMCS-difficult one! ==> 我的天 EB previously used: HERAPDF 50/50, H1 100/100 EB discussion: SS says H1 believes that 50/50 is wrong. Only acceptable due to trijets AG says 50/50 is much better than 100/100 AMCS wants to compare to NLO result [show decreased scale uncertainties --> 50/50] MS: If 50/50 was okay for 2015 paper, it must be okay now. EB decision: Use theory uncertainty in the abstract and quote number --> Ask Thomas about what we should use for theory number 50/50 or 100/100 =======> Thomas was asked and says 100/100 -- so be it. The abstract was modified accordingly. Only one value! The other value is only used for a comparison to the NLO result, discussed in connection with Fig.2a) and in the summary. Discussion and comparison somewhere in the paper. probably where we have 4.1. now. =======> Adjusted to Thomas' decision -- in comparison to NLO scale unc. not needed in what was 4.1 Adjusted more on scales: The correlation issue for the scale uncertainties; there is a suggestion to phrase the 100% as traditional. Is this okay for the EB? no DH wants to know why the two scale uncertainties quoted after line 281 are almost equal. (editor: because the same procedure was applied -- does the EB want this to be written down?) AMCS- Should not be done. EB decision: answer him in private and the text will most likely change anyhow =======> private answer to DH by AMCS was given ==>DH4 (editor: I don't really understand what is wanted) However, it seems like he wants a lot more emphasis on scale choices for alpha_s? And on the compatibility between fixed alpha_s and free PDFs and free alpha_s and free PDFs. This latter is shown in Fig2a which he didn't understand. AMCS- I think the description is fine, this sort of plot is standard. (editor: keep it as is and explain it to DH) (editor is still not sure what is wanted) EB decision: do nothing and point him to H1 paper Fig4 -- do not want to repeat whatever is there -- here, we fit alpha + PDFs AG: "scale uncertainties were not considered for the comparisons to data". AG thinks thinks this is not acceptable. AMCS--well it is what we did in 1506.06042-- AG: The NNLO predictions have significant scale uncertainties (from the jet matrix elements), and these should be shown (separately). This is different from the potential scale uncertanties of the PDFs that were discussed in the previous sections, which can indeed not be usefully quantified. (editor: Can this be done? Do we have uncertainties from matrix elements available? If yes, should it be done?) AMCS-- It can probably be done if I understand him correctly -- i.e. he wants the final PDFs fixed but alternative scales used. But I don't think it should be done. EB discussion: AMCS: It can be done. TG : is in theory papers EB decision: Don't do it and point to theory paper ref [10]. =======> done =======> The new grids include uncertainties which were taken into account in the fit. --see 3., end of forth paragraph The uncertainties on the NNLO predictions were taken into account in the fit producing the fits. -- also in second paragraph of new sect 4.3 Comparisons to past publications: ---------------------------------- 我的天 Should we keep Section 4.1. or stop after the first sentence and add this somewhere in Section 4? [IA] Should the rest go to the additional material? AMCS--I say keep it as it is but this is modulo 'the bug'. (editor: Please also consider that the previous results currently referenced are also influenced by the problem in the NNLO predictions.) --> EB 我的天 EB discussion: Could/should the final decision be deferred to the evaluation of the situation at the time of publication. Perhaps only compare scale uncertainties. EB preliminary decision: Do not refer to fits by individual collaborations, i.e. only give citations but no values. write: To compare with previous analysis we also... --> rewrite section 4.1 in accordance what we will have as theory uncertainty Should this section be enlarged comparing to other results[JG]? Should there be a discussion on differences[JG]? AMCS-- No to both of these, maybe a plot to show comparisons would be fine. (editor: a plot would be nice -- only NNLO values -- but not after the bug) EB decision: no and no ==> no change in paper but send explanation to JG AG wants info from 278 at the beginning of the paragraph. AMCS-- I think it is okay where it is EB decision: no -- but this will be rewritten anyhow =======> old section 4.1 is now the last two paragraphs og the new 4.1 a tentative text is provided. EB needs to decide according to current situation. Main body plots: ---------------- EB decisions on final list of figures: Fig.1 -- okay It was changed to include the NLO numbers because these were not published in the charm and beauty combination paper. Text was adjusted. =======> done Fig.2 -- x axes okay y axes 0--15[about] for b and c no horizontal black line data point black -- fit black vertical line black dashed --> Katarzyna will check what looks good and make a new version =======> done Figs.3,4,7 xS-->xSigma Figs. 3 and 4 will bcome Figs. 3a and 3b =======> done D_u_v sentence was inserted in text for Fig.3 Fig.5 --> Fig.4 (editor: numbers on y axis are too close to axis) cannot be fixed xSigma needs to be fixed =======> done Fig.6 --> Fig.5 6464(m_W^2)--> M_Z^2 done =======> done (editor: numbers on y axis are too close to axis) cannot be fixed xSigma needs to be fixed =======> done Fig.7 --> Fig.6 make a remark on the green band that it is due to the D_u_v parameter -- done at Fig.3 =======> done Fig.8 --> Fig.7 order changed to b c d a =======> done Fig.15--> Fig.8 M_W --> M_Z comment on kink due to parameterisation which disappears when parameterisation uncertainty is taken into account was not introduced as it is now less pronounced. order changed to b c d a =======> done SS plots --> Figs.9 and 10 alpha_s=0.118 for all like figs 7 and 8 =======> done MS plot NEW should also satisfy MK: could become Fig. 11 MS and KW will communicate and investigate. MS: My proposal was to take the full width error bands from the different gluon error band plots, Fig 8, Fig 15 etc and plot their ratios versus x - for instance, in Fig 8a), at x=10^-3, the H2.0 fit extends from around 0.98 to 1.025 in y, and the H2.0jets fit extends from 0.99 to 1.022 in y, or thereabouts, estimating just by eye. Therefore the full width ranges are 0.45 and 0.32 respectively and so at x=10^-3 one would plot the value 0.45/0.32 = 1.41. This would then show an actual quantitative representation of the reduction of the uncertainty directly. Clearly this ratio as a function of x would be much greater than 1 towards larger x. So plotting H2.0/H2.0jets in this way would perhaps be preferable to plotting as H2.0jets/H2.0 which would map everything to the range 0 to 1, so would need to be shown on a log y scale which might then obscure detail around y=1 which we would be interested in. So using the plots from Fig 8, one could therefore include all 4 lines from each of the different panels, in a single panel. One could also include a second panel with the same ratios but using all uncertainties evaluated with as=0.118 fits and so on - probably better to show them both in separate panels rather than try to include 8 lines on the same plot. Alternatively, one could use a single panel with only the ratio of the full range uncertainties for the "total" uncertainties rather then for the different components, and then include the comparisons between the (as=0.115, 0.118), (as=0.118) and (as=MZ) panels all on the same plot with only 3 lines. Hopefully this makes sense. I would suggest this as an additional figure rather than as a replacement for Fig 8 etc, since I think that it is also still useful to see to what extent the actual error band is centred on the prediction for where the uncertainty is very asymmetric as in say Fig 15c or indeed Fig 15a. =======> done and introduced [one in main body, rest as Appendix B] data plots: for each data set a figure with two panels top: old plots bottom ratios: -- data/theory ratio around line of y=1 -- band with theory uncertainty [without scale unc.] (--> ref 10) -- data points with total uncertainties =======> done -------- individual plot questions as discussed: Should ratio plots be added? as panels? ---AMCS yes proably as panels Should the log plots be removed? --AMCS NO EB discussion: Should all jet data sets be shown? Should inclusive data sets be shown? EB decisions: -- All jet data-sets will be shown for points used in the fits -- No inclusive data sets will be shown -- separate ratio plots for all data sets =======> done Should anything from pages 28--30 be added to the main body? -- see below Fig.15 yes, rest no =======> done Should the SS plots be added? -- EB decision: see below SS-Fig.8 same alpha_s yes =======> done Should the MK plots be added? -- These are plots on high-x gluon and plots requested comparing at different alpha_s -- EB decision: no --> existing plots will become internal information -- The MS plots should also satisfy MK. ======> MS plots are there. Figures [AL]: Fig. 2: a) not good choice of the light blue color (alpha_S free fit). --AMCS is it not what we did before? but I dont care much Is that the line passing through the blue points? no =======> done b) red points connected with a dark line. c) red points connected with a red line. Why is the x-axis scale of a) different from b) and c)? AMCS--only b) and c) NEED to be the same axis EB decision: AL will get a private Email with explanations =======> done 16.8.21 Figures [DH]: Figs. 3, 4 and 7 the sea label in the figure and the captions are different. AMCS noted already =======> fixed Figs. 3-7 : Why is the green band for medium x broad for uv and not for dv ? AMCS--that's just the way it works =======> cannot be changed (editor: I do not understand the following remarks) ==> answers by AMCS Figure 2a : I don’t understand. Are all parameters except for alpha_s free ? AMCS YES also the scales ? AMCS NO the scale uncertainty is done separately Note my remarks above. It seems to me vital to understand the interplay between alpha_s and the systematics, before any conclusion can be reached about the central value of alpha_s. --AMCS--this interplay is taken into account by the the chisq whereby systematic shifts of the data points are part of the formalism--it is NOT NEW!!! Figs.3-7: The figures for different alpha_s do not mean very much, since the pdfs are part of the fit. --AMCS almost exactly wrong, I dont think he knows what is going on-- Figure 8 : I don’t understand. What remains constant and what is part of the fit ? What do you conclude ? ---AMCS--it is ALL part of the fit, but you have to do different fits to evaluate model/param uncertainties-- again he does not know what is going on EB decision: DH will get a special Email with explanations =======> Appendices: ------------ Should Appendix A be kept or made additional material? (editor: should be kept) AMCS-- I think we keep this appendix-- EB discussion: MS: there is no physics reason for this IA: was done as H1 requested it SS: was not requested to be published AMCS: was a lot of work, but she is willing to let it go EB decision: will be removed together with sentence pointing at it will not become additional material --> will be internal material =======> done Appendix B will become Appendix A =======> done Additional material: --------------------- Should scan plots as shown on page 27 stay as additional material-- AMCS-- NO (editor: remove) Is this okay for the EB? yes --> page 27 disappears =======> done Should all of the plots on pages 28 -- 30 stay as additional material? EB decisions: -- Figure 15, page 28 will go to main body after now figure 8 with M_W --> M_Z =======> done with comment on kink due to parameterisation which disappears when this uncertainty is taken into account order changed to b c d a =======> the editor didn't see any kink and did nothing -- Figures 16, 17, pages 29,30 will not be additional public material They will be kept as internal information =======> done Should the additional plots requested by SS at the paper presentation be in the paper, become additional material? [As already said in the paper presentation, I would prefer very much to have figure 8 or 15 with the same alpha_s for both PDFs. Using different alpha_s blurs the message of the figure. People will possibly try to relate the uncertainty differences to the alpha_s choice rather than focus on the message of uncertainty improvements through the new data.] == MS considers these plots rather misleading. == AMCS--I think SS's plots at same alphas should be somewhere, I dont mind where. However: old fit cnnot be repeated with new alpha_s -- --> cannot compare to old fit at new alpha_s (editor: if EB wants the existing plots, --> additional material) What does the EB want? EB decision: Add the plots SS wants with same alpha_s after now figure 15 which will be behind Fig. 8. -- as editor understands for mu_f^2 = 10 an M_Z^2. =======> done ==> There will not be any additional public material! Summary: --------- Should it end with something more spectacular? [AL] (editor: wants to change order to give alpha_s result first -- following strategy of paper) =======> done DH3: DH wants a long discussion what compatible means and whether we tested QCD. AMCS--NO, QCD is an established theory (editor: Perhaps a nice sentence on the overall consistency of the picture could make AL and DH somewhat happy. If the EB endorses this, the editor will try to come up with a suggestion.) =======> added a legacy paragrah at the end of the summary. Are the plans of the editor okay for the EB? yes --> Editor will send update around. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- References: ----------- Halina’s name is mispelled in refs [2] and [21].—> Abramowicz. -- done refs [11] and [12] have the same arXiv number. Change ref [12] to hep-ph/0609285 -- done ref [17] V. Andreev et al. [This has been fixed in bibtex -- must have been wrong for a while] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- =========Details on individual significant comments========================= H1-JG Significant: I list here all questions that are not just wording only. ============== General: I miss a bit a general outline of the fit procedure. We determine alpha_s and PDFs. In the introduction one learns that we determine both simultaneously. Then in 3.1 to 3.4 nothing is said on alpha_s. Then alpha_s is determined fitting also pdfs, but discussed only in context of scaling violations. And then alpha_s is unexpectedly fixed to determine pdfs which one had assumed to have been already determined together with alpha_s. To understand the paper more easily, I would like to have some guidance early on. EB decision: editor will give it a try --> done -- see introduction Comparisons with other results in section 4.1 is a bit meager, showing only the level of consistency, if data are treated similarly. But the difference of the Results or the agreement is of interest in first place. The paper could also compare the result to other important analyses in different reactions. What is the relevance of the result on alpha_s? EB decision: no extension Comments in detail: ----------------------- 3.1 Choice .. ---------------- 127 "extra parameters .. one at a time": Is there some arbitrariness in which sequence the further parameters were chosen? Is the actual choice of parameters depending on the sequence? HERAPDF procedure since 2010: EB decision: line 127 citation[2] + [0911.0884] was implemented 3.2. Model .. ---------------- What is done with alpha_s in these PDF fits? Or the other way round, one wonders whether these variations lead only to uncertainties on the PDFs and not on alpha_s. In the introduction it is said, that fitted together. The value of αlpha_s is either fixed to the input value or free for the simultaneous fit of αlpha_s and the PDFs. EB decision: put this in --> was done 153 what determined the variation of mu^2_f0? EB decision: answer to him privately don't put into paper that it is arbitary 3.3 ----- 175 Here in 3.3 alpha_s is mentioned. But what in 3.2? I already asked there. -- answered 191 but mu_f0 = sqrt(1.6) = 1.26 < 1.37. One could check and state what happens then. it was done -- nothing much EB decision: answer in privat The whole thing is considered an avoidance of double counting 4 ---- 228 I guess (2,0 mu_r, 1,0 mu_F) typo -- sorry 4.1 ----- 269-277 The reader ist not so much interested whether data agree, if treated the same way, but at least as much whether the results are very different or not if different assumptions are used. So the main results as they were presented should be compared as well. 282 Again the main focus seems to be on trying to do the same. EB decision: answer in private Editors answer: Well, results cannot be compared, if the assumptions are incompatible. There were a lot of H1 requests on this creating a lot of work for the analysers. Anyhow, the scale uncertainties have now changed for this analysis and all comparisons are anyhow rewritten -- if they are possible at all. The EB will hopefully decide. 5 ----- 305 if mentioned, what was then actually done, which scale variations assumed, as for the alpha_s fit? yes --> perhaps can improve text Editor tried her best... --> pointed at procedure as described before 318-320 "The reduction in model and parameterisation uncertainty ... mostly due to the necessity to change the estimation procedure." What does this mean? --> improved procedure ==> improved uncertainties ==> modified text Understandable? Further discussion is rather technical. I would expect some words on the actual observations, like that the largest effect is seen at large x. ==> has been included. Is it really significant as it appears to be? ==> The specialist say "yes". Editors answer: There was a lot of discussion. There are now more plots. There was some rephrasing. I hope it helps EB decision: answer in private EMail was sent August 16, 2021 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- H1-DH Comments to the draft v.05-July 27, 2020 Impact of jet production on the NNLO determination of HERAPDF2.0 parton distributions Dieter Haidt, August 24, 2020 EB decisions: see above -- an answer will be sent The present analysis of the H1 and ZEUS data from HERA based on the inclusive processes as well as jet production within NNLO of pQCD is a major achievement and constitutes an essential part of HERA’s legacy. Some of the authors remember the very first steps performed by MARK at SLAC and Gargamelle at CERN, half a century ago, and appreciate the huge effort to arrive at the mature results of HERA. The huge progress on the experimental side is complemented by the equally huge progress on the theory side allowing now for a comparison at NNLO level. DH1==> The emphasis of the present analysis is to study the impact of data on jet production when added to the previous analyses of the inclusive data alone. Apart from increasing the statistics the unique value of jet production comes from the direct dependence of the gluon (lines 217-231). I suggest therefore devote the first chapter to discussing the improvement in the pdf parameters and their correlations determining the phenomenological parton distribution functions. The crux of all analyses is the limited knowledge of the gluon distribution function obtained from the triangular phasespace in (x,Q2). The jetdata provide a genuine new insight. Within the same framework : compare the parameter fit using the inclusive data alone with the new fit in this paper of inclusive data + jetdata. Illustrate it with two figures and make it quantitative with tables of the bestvalues and their correlations in both cases. Comments on the improved gluon distribution are welcome. DH2==> Thanks to Katarzyna I had a chance to study the correlation table of the combined data. I had anticipated strong correlations the gluon and the seaquark parameters and also between alpha_s and the gluon parameters, but to my surprise there are only rather moderate correlations with all pdf parameters. Perhaps the comparison with the correlation table using the inclusive data alone will elucidate my prejudice. ==>DH5 Line 139 : The momentum sumrule is an integral in x from 0 to 1. Given the conditions of our analysis the application of the momentum sumrule is useless and only introduces a bias. The reason is that an integration is required over the full range in x for all Q2. The behavior of the pdf at low x is unknown. Due to the triangular shape of the phase space the constraint for increasing Q2 is getting more and more uncertain, since there are no measurements for low x, while the parametric x -dependence merely reflects the evolved information from the low Q2-region. Therefore, drop the momentum sumrule. ==>DH6 The heavy flavor contribution is included through pQCD evolution from massless quarks. A remark would be in order, why we did not use our own direct measurements. Is it because of missing NNLO predictions ? ==>DH4 It is of particular interest to illustrate the impact of the systematic sources on the value of alpha_s. A figure showing the variation of alpha_s with the scale parameters would be revealing, since the uncertainty of the bestfit is dominated by the scale uncertainties. The parametric dependence should be done for fixed pdf, otherwise the effect may be compensated partially by adjusting the (many) pdf parameters. The point will be whether the value of alpha_s is significantly shifted when varying the scale parameters. If it turns out that the central value of alpha_s is little dependent on the scale uncertainties, then we have a strong argument that our determination in the spacelike region differs from the one in the timelike region, which is also affected by scale uncertainties. ==> DH5 The determination of the parton distribution functions and alpha_s are linked. The key to the understanding of our paper is largely related to the chisquare function and the way it is exploited. I suggest to devote a detailed presentation, technicalities may be deferred to an Appendice. a. How is the chi2-function defined ? chi2(p) = Term with matrix(yi,f,C) + Term with constraints yi = measurements xi = kinematic variables f = prediction depending upon kinematics and free parameters C = correlation matrix containing the uncertainties p = alpha_s + pdf-parameters + systematic parameters b. How are the systematic uncertainties implemented ? and in particular the splitting ? c. Is the fit performed simultaneously for all free parameters ? Or in terms of fixed values for alpha_s ? Is the “so-called” chisquare scan a sequence of ch2-fits with fixed values of alpha_s including all other parameters as free, also the scale parameters ? d. The chi2/dof is quoted as 1.2. Does this indicate an underestimation of some uncertainties, perhaps the scale uncertainties ? If so, would it be possible to repeat the fit with enlarged uncertainties to see the effect on the bestvalue of alpha_s ? e. Is the meaning of chi2 the same everywhere in the text ? f. Is the gluon distribution function dominating value and size of alpha_s among the pdfs ? How big are the shifts in alpha_s caused by the systematics in the pdfs and the scales ? Shifts are linear effects. It may be justified to average over some of them. g. The determination of alpha_s is dominated by the systematic theory error of +-0.0024 compared to the experimental error +-0.001. One may ask whether the treatment of the systematics has an important effect on the central fit value of alpha_s (see point f) Line 284 : why is the scale uncertainty almost equal to this analysis (and not bigger) ? Figure 2a : I don’t understand. Are all parameters except for alpha_s free ? also the scales ? Note my remarks above. It seems to me vital to understand the interplay between alpha_s and the systematics, before any conclusion can be reached about the central value of alpha_s. Figures 3-7 : Why is the green band for medium x broad for uv and not for dv ? The figures for different alpha_s do not mean very much, since the pdfs are part of the fit. Figure 8 : I don’t understand. What remains constant and what is part of the fit ? What do you conclude ? Line 344 : are we quoting the fit values and correlations for the two values of alpha_s assumed. ==> DH2 Line 347 : A careful discussion should be given qualifying “compatible”. Note my remarks above. I suggest a much extended conclusion. I have - for my own sake - tried to highlight what we have achieved., since the present paper is perhaps the last word and therefore a legacy of HERA inviting some remarks on the overall increase in knowledge as well as some critical remarks on further improvements left to future studies. We may comment on the performance of the collider HERA, the experimental achievements of H1 and ZEUS with detailed publications and a final comparison with QCD (for the first time) at NNLO. The confrontation of experiment and theory provides a consistent picture. ==>DH3 The basic question is to what extent we have tested QCD. Our concern is perturbative QCD, which reduces the question to stating in which (x,Q2)-region pQCD is valid. This implies to worry about two frontiers (a) the transition in Q2 from the nonperturbative to perturbative regime and (b) the transition from moderate x-values to very low x-values. The first question is addressed by considering various starting scales in Q2, thus getting safe against higher twists. The other question, though important, may remain disregarded, since it concerns only the small tip in the phase space region at low Q2 and low x. Given the assumption that in the selected phase space region pQCD be valid the data are used to determine the parton distribution function, which are the necessary input to predict the observables. Since pQCD is applied at order NNLO (which is an achievement in itself), there is an intrinsic purely theoretical uncertainty coming from the truncation of the perturbative series. We address this uncertainty by varying the scales involved. Our conclusion about the impact of these systematic uncertainties will be decisive in judging the difference of our determination in the spacelike regime of alpha_s and the existing one in the timelike regime. In any case here is a task for future work in theory. The determination of the parton distributions is of value in itself and represents an important achievement, although there are still several weak aspects : the a priori assumption of the shapes, specific assumptions regarding the flavours , in particular the unknown s sbar-quark contribution and the role of the gluon. It should be emphasized that all in all the present knowledge is remarkable. The experimental information is shared between the determination of the parton distribution functions and the confrontation with pQCD. Is is possible to make an educated guess what fraction of the experimental information is actually available for testing pQCD ? The observation that the correlations between the pdf parameters and alpha_s are weak, is perhaps a strong argument in favour of real test of pQCD. Our analysis demonstrates a consistent picture and complements the efforts in the timelike region. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- H1-J+NO EB decisions -- see above -- will receive a private answer Line 35 describes this paper as the "completion" of the HERAPDF2.0 family. We think that this is too strong a word, since we see that there are possibilities for still further steps; explicitly we think of future NNLO calculations for heavy quark data involvement in the fitting. Thus, inclusive + jets + heavy quarks for the PDFNNLO fitting. The heavy quarks enter also as Vector Meson Production, accessible to QCD calculations. In this connection we like to mention the paper arXiv:1908.08398 by C.A.Flett et al., "How to include exclusive J/psi production data in global pdf analyses". We believe that inclusion of such HERA data will improve the uncertainty situation at low x for the gluon PDF, once the corresponding NLO/NNLO calculations are available. Thus, we would not too strongly stress that the current paper is final, as far as HERAPDFs go. Hopefully there is much more to come! Chapter 2 describes in detail how several data points were exempted from the analysis, for various technical reasons. In the final results, one would like to see the predictions of the fitted PDFs for these points, which were NOT included in the fitting procedure. The paper makes the statement that there is good agreement between the fits and the fitted data, which naively is no surprise and only confirms that the inclusive and the jet data are compatible. However, the reader gets curious and wonders about the agreement (or possible disagreement) in the immediate neighborhood of the fitting phase space, the neighborhood which is given by the left out data points. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- H1-ZZ deemphasize alpha_s no -- not done --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ZEUS-AG EB decisions: see above -- will receive a private Email Thanks a lot for the great paper draft and the nice results. I leave simple style comments to others, so please find my significant comments below: section 4: The "experimental" uncertainty is now even less experimental than it was before, since the hadronization uncertainties are now also included. In some ZEUS papers we have just called it "fit" uncertainty, but I know that was not acceptable to H1. So, my compromise proposal (similar to H1/ZEUS paper arXiv:1804.01019) line 231: "exp/fit" line 232: "where exp/fit denotes the fit uncertainty based on the experimental input uncertainties and the hadronization uncertainty" line 234: "the fit uncertainty" line 251: "The similarity ... no additional tension." I don't think this is true. Similar chis/dof > 1 indicates similar tension, also in the jet data. Thus rather: "The similarity of the chi2/d.o.f. values indicates a similar level of tension for the jet and inclusive data." or "The similarity of the chi2/d.o.f. values indicates that the addition of the jet data does not change the average level of tension in the data." or "The similarity of the chi2/d.o.f. values indicates that the addition of the jet data does not increase the average level of tension in the data." line 259: "the negative gluon term" -> "the flexible gluon term" There is nothing in this term that forces the gluon to become negative, nor can the gluon be prevented to become negative (at low enough scales) even without this term. A more flexible parametrisation can never bias the result, as long as the fit converges properly. A more restrictive one can. Thus "could bias" -> "could significantly alter". line 266: "the details" -> "these details". It indicates nothing about potential other variations of the gluon parametrisation. line 278: I would move this difference right to the beginning of the section, since it is a basic conceptual difference that is the main asset of this paper w.r.t. the others. The difference in the treatment of the scale uncertainties in the previous paragraph, although numerically more important, is only a technical difference and should not be highlighted as if it were a conceptual one. Also, it could be stated that the 100% scale correlation option is the "traditional" variant. I am personally convinced the treatement we use use here is better than the traditional one, so I do *not* propose (and would strongly oppose) changing our default treatment. ---- EB decided against traditional --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ZEUS-AL EB-decision: editor will handle by herself and write answer significant: ============ l. 37, remove sentence 'An analysis….family.' =======> family --> ensemble l. 51, remove 'the analysis…at NNLO.' This belongs to the conclusions. =======> changed to tests l. 73, ’several reasons’ - are they all listed in this paragraph? yes =======> rephrased l. 81, In Table I, ’normalised’ appears in the data set column and in the caption. Is it obvious what is meant by normalised? probably not. It becomes clear when data are shown. =======> I added it to the table caption. 1/sigma_NC footnote 3, Is it clear why the value of 25 was chosen. All it says is the it should be > 15. It is totally arbitray -- above 15 it is merely a numerical aid. It has always been like that. l. 203, what is meant by ’technical reasons’? The numbers as published make no sense. l. 210, when trying to make a point about precision, why use ~ for the uncertainty? =======> removed Section 3.4 is titled ‘hadronisation uncertainties’ so is the number given in l. 215 the one that was used here ? It appears with ref [2], meaning it is probably the one used in that paper. What is the number used for the present analysis? That is described in the paragraph before -- it is part of the experimental, i.e. fit uncertainty. =======> Tried to make that clearer by reordering the text and adding a final sentence. lines 340, 360 …ZEUS and H1…Throughout the paper the order is alphabetic, namely H1 and ZEUS. I thought it would make sense to keep this order. =======> done -- enjoyed annoying H1 in a simple way. It could be argued to alternate.. l. 356, is this last sentence the highlight of the paper? It would be nice to end this with a more significant statement. =======> done by adding a legacy paragraph Fig. 2: a) not good choice of the light blue color (alpha_S free fit). Is that the line passing through the blue points? no =======> done -- dotted blck verical line b) red points connected with a dark line. =======> EB wants it eactly as in monster paper. c) red points connected with a red line. Why is the x-axis scale of a) different from b) and c)? onlyb) and c) need to have the same axis a) is a zoom in to show final uncertainties. mail sent to Aharon August 16 2021! ______________________________________________________________________________