STAR HardProbes PWG

[Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Hello Rongrong,

I think we have signed off and I am going to pass your talk to startalk 
now.
if there are any further comments, they can send their 
comment/suggestion.

Cheers
Nihar

On 2022-07-14 23:24, Rongrong Ma via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Please let me know if you have any further comments. My talk is
> scheduled on Wednesday next week. Thanks.
>
> Best
> Rongrong
>
> > On Jul 12, 2022, at 12:44 PM, Rongrong Ma via Star-hp-l
> > <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sooraj
> >
> > Thanks. I have posted a new version (v4), in which the bullet has
> > been changed to "b->e could be used for tagging b-jets". I think the
> > probability to have two high-pt electron candidates in one jet is
> > extremely small, but this can certainly be checked.
> >
> > By the way, I have also added a slide (slide 7) to emphasize the
> > statistical subtraction of combinatorial jets in semi-inclusive
> > measurement.
> >
> > Best
> > Rongrong
> >
> > On Jul 12, 2022, at 11:47 AM, Sooraj Radhakrishnan
> > <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > 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 AffiliateNuclear Science Division
> > Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
> > MS70R0319, One Cyclotron Road
> > Berkeley, CA 94720
> > Ph:  510-495-2473 [1]
> >
> > 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 AffiliateNuclear Science Division
> Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
> MS70R0319, One Cyclotron Road
> Berkeley, CA 94720
> Ph:  510-495-2473 [1]
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] tel:%28510%29%20495-2473
> _______________________________________________
> Star-hp-l mailing list
> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l