sPHENIX is a new detector at RHIC.

[Christopher McGinn <chmc7718 AT colorado.edu>]

Hello,

Thank you for the feedback - I have attached a text file that gives a rough sense of how I incorporated points (there are a few NA's remaining that are either low priority or will be incorporated tonight as I practice). Please find the updated draft here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AOPqmtWW-OKAg8eKNcAyq2p_snl5CKIa/view?usp=sharing

sphenixJetRHICAGS_20201022_V2.pdf drive.google.com

This draft should be considered stable for tomorrow (modulo minor textual changes) unless anyone has a strong opinion on the content.

Thanks again!
Chris

---------------------------------------------------------

Christopher McGinn

PostDoctoral Associate

University of Colorado Boulder
chmc7718 AT colorado.edu
"Pretty cool"

---------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Perepelitsa, Dennis <dvp AT bnl.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 8:25 AM
To: Christopher McGinn <chmc7718 AT colorado.edu>
Cc: sphenix-jet-structure-l AT lists.bnl.gov <sphenix-jet-structure-l AT lists.bnl.gov>; sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov <sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Sphenix-jet-structure-l] Draft for Jet Parallel at RHIC/AGS

 

Hi Chris,

Thanks a lot for the nice draft slides. 

Below are some combined comments from the Colorado group, from myself and Jamie Nagle: 

JLN:

Note the agenda here:   https://indico.bnl.gov/event/9385/

Excellent font choice and layout 

slide 6 - rate good for maximum statistics and also minimal physics bias

slide 7 - EMCal has tungsten powder, fiber design (spaghetti calorimeter).   No crystals.

slide 7 - not sure about terminology.   The front-end electronics (FEE) often refers to the digitizer board that we are working on with Chi and that sits in a rack.   I think the boards on the detector are the pre-amp and shaper boards (?)

slide 8 - I think it is fine to say "rapidity" instead of "pseudorapidty" and thus keep the line alignment better.

slide 9 - nice to reference the IEE article

slide 11 - "combination" -> "combined"

slide 15 - "First measurements" -> sometimes called "Day-1 Measurements"

slide 15 - a lot of plots with lots of labels, maybe add a cartoon or text above each one (e.g. jet-jet, g-jet, with some arrows)

slide 15 - again I like to align text, example would be to return and start new line with "sPHENIX can ..."

slide 16 - excellent

slide 21 - not for this week, but it would be great (DVP) if we can make the left plot corrected for the EM-scale of the calorimeter jets.    Then one can compare the shapes of the distributions in a more apples-to-apples way.   

Very good to practice walking through the slides for time.   You have a lot of information and do not want to get stuck on words.

DVP: 

slide 6: perhaps add two-pi azimuthal acceptance? (this seems like a minor point, but it’s important for some physics measurements - such as containment asymmetrically quenched dijet pairs, characterization of total energy flow in the event, etc.)

slide 6: I would add “unbiased triggering on jets in pp reference data” - an issue at RHIC 

slide 9: you might say something about the test beams more broadly: “Multi-year campaign of test beams at FTBF with successive EMCal+HCal prototypes.” ? 

slide 11: maybe “0.1x0.1” rather than 4x4? in any case, I think the re-towering detail is probably less important than a brief description of the algorithm. you could write “iterative algorithm to estimate dE_T / deta d(layer), while attempting to exclude jets from the estimate”

slide 14: I think it’s valuable to add that for tower jets, the reconstruction and calibration can be identical in pp as in Au+Au (the UE subtraction “factorizes”) which can result in very efficient cancellation of uncertainties - key for physics!

slide 15: these plots are fine to show some expected kinematic ranges with good “out of the box” reconstruction capability. for a look at expected physics sensitivity, you could make a slide with, for example, Figs 7.2 in our Beam Use Proposal: https://indico.bnl.gov/event/7881/attachments/30176/47160/sPH-TRG-2020-001.pdf - not sure if you have the room 

slide 15: a minor point - not sure if worth mentioning - but you could add that due to smaller ISR/FSR, one has an even tighter initial photon-jet pT correlation at RHIC 

slide 23: “daily” is probably an over-dramatization, but no strong objection :) 

Dennis

On Oct 20, 2020, at 9:53 AM, Christopher McGinn <chmc7718 AT colorado.edu> wrote:

Hello all,

Here is a rough draft of my talk representing the sPHENIX jet work in the RHIC/AGS user's meeting later this week. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pEfBS09YG_gKR85GRCzLoNAJdjfiwiya/view?usp=sharing

sphenixJetRHICAGS_20201022.pdf drive.google.com

I will be adding attributions (both for materials and to individuals responsible for various studies), fixing some of the mis-alignments, and clarifying text. 

Please let me know what other suggestions you have, and thank you for your time,
Chris 

---------------------------------------------------------

Christopher McGinn

PostDoctoral Associate

University of Colorado Boulder
chmc7718 AT colorado.edu 
"Pretty cool"

---------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
sPHENIX-jet-structure-l mailing list
sPHENIX-jet-structure-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-jet-structure-l

Dennis V. Perepelitsa

Assistant Professor, Physics Department

University of Colorado Boulder

JLN:
Note the agenda here:   https://indico.bnl.gov/event/9385/
Excellent font choice and layout 

slide 6 - rate good for maximum statistics and also minimal physics bias
 * Done (combined w/ DVP related comments to make a bit more coherent)

slide 7 - EMCal has tungsten powder, fiber design (spaghetti calorimeter).   
No crystals.
 * Switched from crystal to "blocks" and added this clarification

slide 7 - not sure about terminology.   The front-end electronics (FEE) often 
refers to the digitizer board that we are working on with Chi and that sits 
in a rack.   I think the boards on the detector are the pre-amp and shaper 
boards (?)
 * I was generically referring to this full pre-triggering system as FEE; I 
will clarify

slide 8 - I think it is fine to say "rapidity" instead of "pseudorapidty" and 
thus keep the line alignment better.
 * Done (I was 50/50 on this when I wrote the draft)

slide 9 - nice to reference the IEE article
 * Done -> Citations added generally

slide 11 - "combination" -> "combined"
 * Done

slide 15 - "First measurements" -> sometimes called "Day-1 Measurements"
 * Switched to this as a more useful slide title

slide 15 - a lot of plots with lots of labels, maybe add a cartoon or text 
above each one (e.g. jet-jet, g-jet, with some arrows)
 * I have added clear labels and some cartoons

slide 15 - again I like to align text, example would be to return and start 
new line with "sPHENIX can ..."
 * Generally text has been reworded to cut down on overall amount - this 
helps with alignment issues
 
slide 16 - excellent
 * NA

slide 21 - not for this week, but it would be great (DVP) if we can make the 
left plot corrected for the EM-scale of the calorimeter jets.    Then one can 
compare the shapes of the distributions in a more apples-to-apples way.   
Very good to practice walking through the slides for time.   You have a lot 
of information and do not want to get stuck on words.
 * NA

DVP: 
slide 6: perhaps add two-pi azimuthal acceptance? (this seems like a minor 
point, but it’s important for some physics measurements - such as 
containment asymmetrically quenched dijet pairs, characterization of total 
energy flow in the event, etc.)
 * Done, combined w/ Jamies comments above
 
slide 6: I would add “unbiased triggering on jets in pp reference data” - 
an issue at RHIC 
 * Done, again combined w/ Jamies comments above

slide 9: you might say something about the test beams more broadly: 
“Multi-year campaign of test beams at FTBF with successive EMCal+HCal 
prototypes.” ? 
 * NA

slide 11: maybe “0.1x0.1” rather than 4x4? in any case, I think the 
re-towering detail is probably less important than a brief description of the 
algorithm. you could write “iterative algorithm to estimate dE_T / deta 
d(layer), while attempting to exclude jets from the estimate”
 * I have added this detail, and added more info on the literal process of 
subtraction as additional slides (LAST PART TO BE DONE STILL)

slide 14: I think it’s valuable to add that for tower jets, the 
reconstruction and calibration can be identical in pp as in Au+Au (the UE 
subtraction “factorizes”) which can result in very efficient cancellation 
of uncertainties - key for physics!
 * NA
 
slide 15: these plots are fine to show some expected kinematic ranges with 
good “out of the box” reconstruction capability. for a look at expected 
physics sensitivity, you could make a slide with, for example, Figs 7.2 in 
our Beam Use Proposal: 
https://indico.bnl.gov/event/7881/attachments/30176/47160/sPH-TRG-2020-001.pdf
 - not sure if you have the room 
 * NA

slide 15: a minor point - not sure if worth mentioning - but you could add 
that due to smaller ISR/FSR, one has an even tighter initial photon-jet pT 
correlation at RHIC 
 * NA

slide 23: “daily” is probably an over-dramatization, but no strong 
objection :) * NA