PB-TMD pheno meeting

We discussed the correspondance between the evolution in CSS and the PB TMD, in particular how the gray region in the phase space plot corresponds to the nonperturbative part of the CS kernel and fixed zmax/epsilon is similar to the rapidity cutoff (with angular ordering removing much of the dependence).

Next meetings: weeks of July 28 (w/o Laurent) and/or of August 18.

Meeting on August 19

Ola implemented a flavor-dependent TMD. Assigning independent qs for sea/valence is not possible (technically), but it can be done per flavor.

Different scenarios created - we found scenario 1 most interesting because it's closest to sea/valence.
No difference is observed between CMS and LHCb for any scenario.

If we want to focus on sea/valence, should we compare scenario 1 in LHCb (which probes valence+sea) to qs=1 for CMS (which probes sea)?
=> Try scenario 1 with different qs for quarks, keeping antiquarks+gluons at qs=1

Is there a difference between
    scenario 1 with qs(quark)=a and qs(antiquark)=b
and
    usual tmd with qs=(a+b)/2  (or some other average)
?
-> If not, this can dramatically simplify fitting because we don't need to generate events with a != b

Reiterated the need to understand the high chi2 value for the LHCb fit

Next meeting: September 2nd