STAR HardProbes PWG

[Sooraj Radhakrishnan <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov>]

Hi Rongrong,

   Thanks for the clarification and the slides. May be you could add some text to indicate as possible extension of the measurement, like can also study b-jets with electron tagging etc. Statistical subtraction for jets may not be easy as there could be more than one electron inside a jet, but this could be further explored. I dont have further comments, I sign off

thanks

Sooraj 

On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 7:53 PM Rongrong Ma <marr AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Sooraj

Yes, that is what I meant. Please see a study I did before on this topic on slide 29 of https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/20200313_JetCorrPWG_0.pdf. We can achieve a purity of 65-70% for electron pt of 4 GeV/c and above using the cut of -2.0 < log10(DAC) < 1.0. Furthermore, one can probably preform template fitting in each jet pT bins to extract the b-jet yield with ~ 100% purity statistically, similar to what was done for D0-tagged jet analysis.  I think it is a feasible measurement, which is why I want to mention it here even if no details are given. I can mention about purity if people ask. 

Best

Rongrong

On Jul 12, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Sooraj Radhakrishnan via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Rongrong,

   Thanks for the updated version and the answers. I am fine with the other replies and the update

On S17, its not still clear to me what you intend to say here. Do you want to say we could as a new analysis study b-jets using electron tagging with HFT in the 2014+2016 data? You dont discuss/show purity or efficiency here. For single electron analysis, we were using template fits to get the relative bottom and charm fractions. Tagging could be done for b-->e, but the purity would depend on the DCA cut and electron pT. 

thanks

Sooraj

On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 10:18 PM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Rongrong,

That is fine.
I sign off.

Thank you
Nihar

On 2022-07-09 23:49, Rongrong Ma wrote:
> Hello Nihar
>
> Indeed NLO effect is not present in PYTHIA. However, the fact that
> PYTHIA can describe data well implies that such NLO effects are
> mimicked in PYTHIA in someway, maybe through parton shower. Therefore,
> I do not think it is fair to use NLO effects in vacuum as an
> explanation of the difference between HI and PYTHIA. Thanks.
>
> Best
> Rongrong
>
>> On Jul 4, 2022, at 10:55 AM, Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l
>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Rongrong,
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>> Slide #9: I added "Scattering off medium constituents?". I am not
>>> sure
>>> about "Large vacuum radiation" since it should be included in the
>>> PYTHIA baseline.
>>
>> That’s fine.
>> But “vacuum radiation “ I mean here is that Contribution from NLO
>> effect which is not present in PYTHIA.
>> Although vacuum (sudakov) radiation is relatively less at RHIC than
>> LHC.
>>
>> Regards
>> Nihar
>>
>> Sent from iPhone
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2022-07-04 18:05, Rongrong Ma wrote:
>>> Hello Nihar
>>> Thanks for your further comments. I have updated my slides at the
>>> same
>>> link:
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/RMa_2022_RBRC_v2.pdf.
>>> Slide #8: done
>>> Slide #9: I added "Scattering off medium constituents?". I am not
>>> sure
>>> about "Large vacuum radiation" since it should be included in the
>>> PYTHIA baseline.
>>> Thanks.
>>> Best
>>> Rongrong
>>>> On Jul 3, 2022, at 10:52 PM, Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l
>>>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>> Hello Rongrong,
>>>> Thank you for addressing my comment and answering my questions.
>>>> I have remaining comment/suggestion, with this I sign off.
>>>> Slide#8: dN/pT (R=0.2) /dN/pT (R=0.5)  ->  dN/dpT (R=0.2) / dN/dpT
>>>> (R=0.5)
>>>> "Effects of wake?" -> Do we need to point to this physics only here?
>>>> There are other physics also.
>>> I agree with you, however, I think if you could mention along with
>>> this (Effect of wake) other three effects like "Rutherford Scattering
>>> off quasi-particle of QGP", "Multiple scattering and medium induced
>>> gluon radiation in QGP", and "Large vacuum radiation"; (In my view,
>>> one-two of these three effects are more feasible explanation of this
>>> observation ;) )
>>> That could give a clear picture of possible effects of this
>>> observation.
>>>>> SLide#10
>>>>> _ Please mention "Delta R" somewhere
>>>>> _Do we need to mention here the matching criteria?
>>>>> Do you mean the Delta R between HardCore and Matched jets? I will
>>>>> mention orally that they are matched geometrically
>>> That is fine.
>>>>> I am not sure about this. This is what is stated in the paper "We
>>>>> observe a clear dijet imbalance indicating jet quenching effects
>>>>> in Au
>>>>> + Au collisions for all HardCore jets including the wide angle
>>>>> jets."
>>>>> Essentially, we are saying that the shapes are different between
>>>>> p+p
>>>>> and Au+Au for HardCore jets.
>>> That is OK.
>>>>> We have done a calculation of the total charm production cross
>>>>> section in Au+Au, which was found to be compatible to p+p. See
>>>>> slide 5
>>>>> of
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/files/QM2022_poster_slides_Vanek_v09.pdf.
>>>>> So there aren't more charm quarks produced in HI collision, but
>>>>> rather
>>>>> more charm quarks form Lc and Ds, at least in the kinematic region
>>>>> we
>>>>> are measuring, and consequently less for D0 and D+/-.
>>> Thank you for this explanation.
>>> Regards
>>> Nihar
>>> On 2022-07-02 20:14, Rongrong Ma wrote:
>>>> Hello Nihar
>>>> Thanks for your nice comments. A new version has been uploaded to
>>>> Drupal.
>>>> Please see my replies inline:
>>>>> On Jul 2, 2022, at 1:17 AM, Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l
>>>>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>> Hello Rongrong,
>>>>> Thanks for sharing your nice HP talk.
>>>>> Please find my comment and question below.
>>>>> Slide#6: "high-pT leading particle "  -> "high-pT constituent
>>>>> particle"
>>>> I changed to "high-pT leading constituent". I think it is important
>>>> to point out that the requirement is only for the leading particle,
>>>> otherwise, people might think we make such requirement for all the
>>>> constituents.
>>>>> "single hadrons" -> "inclusive charged hadrons"
>>>> Done
>>>>> Slide#7 "spectrum shape" I understand the reason to mention this
>>>>> that jet pT spectra shapes are different for pi0 and gamma.
>>>>> But not sure if it is ok to include this with color
>>>>> factor and mean path length dependence.
>>>>> "Spectrum shape" is after hadronization.
>>>>> You may consider to include another bullet about "Jet
>>>>> pT spectral shapes are different for pi0+jet and gamma+jet"
>>>> I added "Different spectrum shapes" as a sub-bullet now. I agree
>>>> that
>>>> it is not a motivation as other two points, but rather a consequence
>>>> we need to deal with.
>>>>> "Similar suppression for γ-jet and π0-jet" -> "Similar
>>>>> suppression
>>>>> for γ-jet and π0-jet within uncertainty"
>>>> Done
>>>>> You could also point out  that "for R=0.5, IAA(pt) shape is
>>>>> different than R=0.2"
>>>> Done
>>>>> SLide#8:
>>>>> "Ratio of cross sections " -> in this context "Ratio of yield as a
>>>>> function of jet pT"  (these are semi-inclusive measurement)
>>>> Changed to "Ratio of yields"
>>>>> Slide#9:
>>>>> Title "Inter-jet Broadening" -> "γ-jet and π0-jet acoplanarity"
>>>>> or
>>>>> simply "Jet acoplanarity in heavy-ion collisions"
>>>> Changed to "Jet acoplanarity"
>>>>> For this slides, I suggest to include p+p data and Pythia8
>>>>> comparisons to convince people that both are consistent at 9-11
>>>>> GeV
>>>>> ET.
>>>>> (For note: In case someone ask to have same kinematic comparison
>>>>> for
>>>>> pp like 11-15 GeV, you could say that we have done that
>>>>> measurement
>>>>> recently; but not shown here And for pi0+jet they are also
>>>>> consistent within uncertainty; we are working for publication.)
>>>> This is a good point. Replaced the left plot with pp figure.
>>>> I moved R = 0.2 results to backup
>>>>> "Effects of wake?" -> Do we need to point to this physics only
>>>>> here?
>>>>> There are other physics also.
>>>> This is one mechanism which seems to be able to explain both R =
>>>> 0.2
>>>> and R = 0.5. I think it would be interesting to discuss a bit about
>>>> this. I put a question mark there to indicate it is not the only
>>>> explanation.
>>>>> SLide#10
>>>>> _ Please mention "Delta R" somewhere
>>>>> _Do we need to mention here the matching criteria?
>>>> Do you mean the Delta R between HardCore and Matched jets? I will
>>>> mention orally that they are matched geometrically
>>>>> Slide#11
>>>>> "< AJ > " -> Do you mean average AJ ?
>>>> Yes
>>>>> Another important info from this measurement was "No significant
>>>>> difference between p+p and Au+Au of jet substructure with hardcore
>>>>> selection"
>>>>> Do you want to point this out?
>>>> I am not sure about this. This is what is stated in the paper "We
>>>> observe a clear dijet imbalance indicating jet quenching effects in
>>>> Au
>>>> + Au collisions for all HardCore jets including the wide angle
>>>> jets."
>>>> Essentially, we are saying that the shapes are different between p+p
>>>> and Au+Au for HardCore jets.
>>>>> Slide#17
>>>>> "Redistribution of charm quarks in HI collisions?" Not sure but is
>>>>> not that "More production charm quarks in HI collisions?"
>>>>> Trying to understand "Redistribution of charm…"
>>>> We have done a calculation of the total charm production cross
>>>> section in Au+Au, which was found to be compatible to p+p. See slide
>>>> 5
>>>> of
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/files/QM2022_poster_slides_Vanek_v09.pdf.
>>>> So there aren't more charm quarks produced in HI collision, but
>>>> rather
>>>> more charm quarks form Lc and Ds, at least in the kinematic region
>>>> we
>>>> are measuring, and consequently less for D0 and D+/-.
>>>>> Slide#25
>>>>> "Inter-jet broadening" -> "Jet acoplanarity"
>>>> Done
>>>>> Slide#27:
>>>>> Just curious: Do you know why we do not have projection of J/psi
>>>>> v1
>>>>> between pT:9-14 GeV/c  where we have projection for v2 upto pT:14
>>>>> GeV/c?
>>>>> Is this just we don't show or any reason?
>>>> My guess is that the v1 measurement is much more challenging
>>>> compared
>>>> to v2.
>>>>> Just a suggestion to include STAR HP kinematic coverage BUR plot
>>>>> for
>>>>> RUn23+25, good to show at the end.
>>>> Done.
>>>> Best
>>>> Rongrong
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Nihar
>>>>> On 2022-07-02 01:56, Rongrong Ma via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>>>> Hello All
>>>>> This is an invited talk on sPHENIX relevant STAR results and plans
>>>>> at
>>>>> the Predictions for sPHENIX RBRC Workshop
>>>>> (https://www.bnl.gov/sphenix2022/index.php). I focus mainly on
>>>>> jets
>>>>> and HF results. Please send me your comments. Thanks.
>>>>> Best
>>>>> Rongrong
>>>>> On Jul 1, 2022, at 4:22 PM, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l
>>>>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>>>> Rongrong Ma (marr AT bnl.gov) has submitted a material for a review,
>>>>> please have
>>>>> a look:
>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/60153
>>>>> ---
>>>>> If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
>>>>> webmaster AT 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

--

Sooraj Radhakrishnan

Research Scientist,

Department of Physics

Kent State University

Kent, OH 44243

Physicist Postdoctoral Affiliate

Nuclear Science Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
MS70R0319, One Cyclotron Road

Berkeley, CA 94720

Ph: 510-495-2473

Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov

_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l

--

Sooraj Radhakrishnan

Research Scientist,

Department of Physics

Kent State University

Kent, OH 44243

Physicist Postdoctoral Affiliate

Nuclear Science Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
MS70R0319, One Cyclotron Road

Berkeley, CA 94720

Ph: 510-495-2473

Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov