STAR HardProbes PWG

[Tong Liu <tong.liu AT yale.edu>]

Hi Yi,

Thanks for the confirmation. Nihar, Barbara, and Sooraj, could you please also take a look and check for any further comments? Thanks!

Tong Liu

Ph.D. Student '2023 

Physics Dept., Yale University

Tel: 203-435-2130

On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 5:01 AM Yi Yang <yiyang AT ncku.edu.tw> wrote:

Dear Tong,

Thanks a lot for the updated version and replies. 

I don't have any further comments on your nice proceedings.

Cheers,

Yi

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yi Yang, Associate Professor
Department of Physics
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, 701 Taiwan
E-Mail: yiyang AT ncku.edu.tw
Tel: +886-6-2757575 ext.65237
Fax: +886-6-2747995
Group Web: http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/~yiyang
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 12:32 PM Tong Liu <tong.liu AT yale.edu> wrote:

Hi Yi and all,

Thanks for the comments; I have a few replies attached below. I agree with those not listed/mentioned here and I've already implemented them. Please find an updated version on drupal, and see if you have further comments. Thanks!

 

   - L47: Just for my own education, why is it 5.1 GeV/c? Not 5.0?

The reason is kinda trivial: The pp reference we are comparing against is binned that way. It has a bin from 4.8 to 5.1 GeV/c, and one from 5.1 to 6. We would’ve happily used 5 GeV if the reference were binned that way; and since it doesn’t make much difference anyway, in the HG-PYTHIA simulation we went back to the 5 GeV/c threshold.

   - Is it possible to move Fig 1 after L58? It seems better (to me) to see the descriptions before the plot. 

Maybe I’m just bad at latex, but I can’t find a way to do so…

   - L77 - 79: Just for my own education, I think the RAA results (data points in Fig.1) are efficiency-corrected, right? Then, why do you need simulation including detector effects? 

Yes, but the random nature of detector inefficiency means the centrality ranking might be shuffled in real data; e.g. an events who has 31 truth-level tracks but loses 4 of them could end up in a more peripheral class than another with 30 tracks but only loses 2. Since refmult mostly relies on low-pt tracks and peripheral isobar events already don’t have many tracks, this effect might’ve been substantial already.

Tong Liu

Ph.D. Student '2023 

Physics Dept., Yale University

Tel: 203-435-2130

On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 5:58 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Tong,

Can you please send your latest proceedings link if you have implemented
Yi's comment?

Thank you
Nihar

On 2022-07-05 11:46, Yi Yang via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Hi Tong,
>
> Sorry for the very late reply and thanks a lot for the reminder (I
> almost forgot this, very sorry about that).
>
> Thanks a lot for the very nice proceedings.
> I only have some very minor comments/suggestions for your
> consideration.
>    - L7: in our community --> in heavy-io community (is it better?
> Totally up to you.)
>    - L9: Do you need this bracket? I would remove it.
>    - L13: high pT --> high transverse momenta (pT)
>    - L14: low transverse momenta (pT) --> low pT
>    - L25: Add some references from the BES program?
>    - L33: It would be good to specify the collision systems, say
> Isobar, Au+Au, d+Au, and Cu+Cu.
>    - L34: In section 3 we --> in section 3, we
>    - L35: distribution --> distributions
>    - L36: ratio --> ratios
>    - L42: in [2] --> in Ref. [2]
>    - L44: from [3] --> from Ref. [3]
>    - L47: Just for my own education, why is it 5.1 GeV/c? Not 5.0?
>    - Is it possible to move Fig 1 after L58? It seems better (to me)
> to see the descriptions before the plot.
>    - L48: the quality -> the high statistics (? Up to you)
>    - L53: [3] [4] [5] --> [3 - 5]   (I think you can just use \cite{a,
> b, c}
>    - L55: Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr RAA results --> The RAA results from Ru+Ru
> and Zr+Zr   (Or "The Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr RAA results)
>    - L67: in [6] --> in Ref. [6]
>    - L73: I would use "0.2 GeV/c" (same unit as others).
>    - L74: 5 GeV --> 5 GeV/c    (not 5.1 GeV/c ?)
>    - L77 - 79: Just for my own education, I think the RAA results
> (data points in Fig.1) are efficiency-corrected, right? Then, why do
> you need simulation including detector effects?
>    - L88: in [10] --> in Ref. [10]
>    - is it possible to move Fig.2 after L93? (up to you, too)
>    - L101: I am not sure if the proceedings from the same conference
> is a good reference. It is probably okay to link to his presentation?)
>
>    - L101: Isobar spectra --> the Isobar spectra
>    - L114: similar comments as "Haojie's proceedings"
>    - L119: "trigger" particles --> "triggered" particles
>    - L120: trigger particles --> triggered particles
>    - L131: Add a reference of the STAR forward upgrade (from previous
> QM?)
>
> Cheers,
> Yi
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 12:09 PM Tong Liu via Star-hp-l
> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
>> Hi Barbara, Nihar & all,
>>
>> I know there are still a few weeks before QM proceedings are due,
>> but could you please take another look at my latest version to see
>> if there are more comments? I would like to move forward with it and
>> get it out of the way as fast as we can. Thanks!
>>
>> Tong Liu
>> Ph.D. Student '2023
>> Physics Dept., Yale University
>>
>> Tel: 203-435-2130
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 11:59 PM Tong Liu <tong.liu AT yale.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Barbara,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments. I have a few responses to some of them; I
>> have applied the rest of them to the updated version on drupal.
>>
>> L57-58: "note that the Zr+Zr RAA is systematically slightly higher
>> due to smaller Npart" - this is not very clear, do you mean that the
>> average Npart in a given centrality bin is smaller for Zr+Zr compare
>> to Ru+Ru ?
>>
>> Yes you’re right. I added “at the same centrality bin”.
>>
>> L104: medium production depends -> medium properties depend (? not
>> fully sure what you wanted to say here)
>>
>> What we show in this chapter is the soft particles, which are
>> produced by QGP hadronization. So the yield presented here is the
>> “medium production”.
>>
>> L131: η coverage -> the η coverage
>>
>> I’m not sure I get what you’re trying to say… my original says
>> “the extended eta coverage offered by the new STAR forward
>> upgrade”
>>
>> L133: studies to understand -> studies that help to understand
>>
>> That sounds a bit weird to me... I changed it to “studies that
>> improve our understanding on ”
>>
>> Tong Liu
>> Ph.D. Student '2023
>> Physics Dept., Yale University
>>
>> Tel: 203-435-2130
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 5:36 AM Barbara Trzeciak
>> <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tong,
>>
>> Nice proceedings.
>> Please see my minor comments for your consideration below.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Barbara
>>
>> L29: "from different systems" -  it sounds redundant here
>> L31: evolves -> evolve
>> L33-34: hadron spectrum at 200 GeV -> hadron spectra at sqrt{s_NN} =
>> 200 GeV
>> L48: above 5.1 GeV -> above 5.1 GeV/c
>> L49: 5% centrality bins -> 5%-wide centrality bins
>> L55: of collision system -> of the collision system
>> L57-58: "note that the Zr+Zr RAA is systematically slightly higher
>> due to smaller Npart" - this is not very clear, do you mean that the
>> average Npart in a given centrality bin is smaller for Zr+Zr compare
>> to Ru+Ru ?
>> L61: effects becomes -> effects become
>> L65: up to 80% -> from 60% up to 80% peripheral events
>> L65:  and deviates ->  and deviate
>> L66: deviation at - deviation in
>> L67: HG-PYTHIA method -> HG-PYTHIA toy model
>> L75: >5 GeV charged particles -> charged particles with pT > 5 GeV/c
>> FIg. 1 caption: above 5.1 GeV -> above pT of 5.1 GeV/c
>> Fig. 1 caption: HG-PYTHIA simulation modified from [6], see text for
>> detail ->HG-PYTHIA simulations modified from [6] are presented as
>> shaded bands, see text for detail.
>> L82:  of medium production ->  of the produced medium (?)
>> L85: the raw ratio -> the ratio of raw yields
>> L86: reveal quite some physics -> provide physics information
>> Fig 2 caption: collisions, binned in centrality -> collisions as a
>> function of pT, in different centrality classes
>> L88: PID -> particle identification
>> L92:  a larger Npart and Ncoll ratio ->  larger Npart and Ncoll
>> ratios
>> L93: in more peripheral collisions -> with increasing centrality
>> L96: are higher than that -> is higher than that
>> L97: across centrality -> across centralities
>> L103: medium production depends -> medium properties depend (? not
>> fully sure what you wanted to say here)
>> L106: wouldn’t -> would not
>> L108:  54 GeV -> \sqrt{s_NN} =  54 GeV
>> L131: η coverage -> the η coverage
>> L133: studies to understand -> studies that help to understand
>> L135: rely on -> depend on
>> L137: initial geometry -> the initial geometry
>> L138: a “suppression” -> maybe: R_AA < 1
>> L139-140: remove "comparisons of"
>> L140: particle yields -> particle yield ratios
>> L140: system -> systems
>> L141: a centrality-dependent ratio -> centrality dependence
>> L146: was found -> is found
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 12:01 AM Tong Liu via Star-hp-l
>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Nihar,
>>
>> Thanks to the comments, I have implemented them and posted them on
>> drupal. The link is kinda funny probably because I created a
>> duplicate entry, so please find the pdf here:
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/QM22_Proceeding_TongLiu%20%281%29_0.pdf
>>
>> Please responses to some your comments below:
>>
>> Line#25:  "dependencies" on what? like system size, Temperature,
>> muB. Need to
>>
>> mention what are those?
>>
>> The dependencies I’m mentioning are system size and collision
>> energies, which I talk about in the next sentence. I also rephrased
>> the next sentence a bit to make it more coherent.
>>
>> Line#63 ":..note that the Zr+Zr RAA is
>>
>> systematically slightly larger due to smaller Npart,"-> I can see
>> both
>>
>> Ru and Zr RAA are consistent within uncertainty. Hence this
>> statement is
>>
>> not correct. Please remove this.
>>
>> I see what you’re trying to say, but the uncertainty you see here
>> is mostly systematic, hence common across isobar species, and should
>> be canceled when comparing Ru against Zr, as is done in section 3.
>> Therefore one should only focus on the central value here.
>> Line#150: "…found, photonuclear processes with high multiplicity
>> .." ->
>>
>> "found in the photonuclear processes with high multiplicity …"
>>
>> The latter part of the sentence is talking about future
>> measurements. That being said, since you removed the “high
>> multiplicity” part in Sec. 4, I removed the corresponding
>> statement here as well– though we need to confirm with Prithwish
>> and Nicole.
>>
>> Line#151: "…help us understand …" -> "…help us to
>> understand…"
>>
>> I believe the “to” is optional here, and since we are short on
>> space anyway I suggest we leave it as is.
>>
>> Tong Liu
>> Ph.D. Student '2023
>> Physics Dept., Yale University
>>
>> Tel: 203-435-2130
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 11:05 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l
>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>> Hello Tong,
>>
>> Please find below my 1st round of comments on your nice proceedings.
>>
>> Line#8: To address these open questions we -> "To address these open
>>
>> questions, we…"
>> Line#12-16: Can you combine these three sentences into one and avoid
>>
>> repeating "we"?
>> Line#19-23: "Lastly, we present…at RHIC" -> "In addition, we
>> present the
>> measurement of particle production and long-range di-hadron
>> correlations
>> in photonuclear processes in gamma+Au events using ultra-peripheral
>> Au+Au collisions at RHIC." Something like this. To make it concise
>> in
>> the abstract.
>>
>> Line#25: "Since the discovery of the quark-gluon plasma(QGP)"  Give
>> a
>> reference here.
>> "dependencies" on what? like system size, Temperature, muB. Need
>> to
>> mention what are those?
>> Line#29: "RHIC doesn’t only provide us with a large and flexible
>> range
>> of energies.."-> "RHIC provides a wide range of collision energies
>> and
>> variety of system size covering…"
>>
>> Line#31: "Further, ensembles with…" -> "Furthermore, the collision
>>
>> system with …" end with a period.
>> Line#34: "jet quenching and flow " are not medium properties.  Like
>>
>> "flow" and "collectivity" are the same properties of QGP.
>> Please rephrase this sentence,
>> LIne#37:-38 "For the first two sections, we focus on …spectrum"
>> Not
>> needed and you can drop it. As you going through Section-2 and -3
>> individually in next sentences.
>> Line#38: "...the high-pT spectrum and show the nuclear modification
>> (RAA)… hard partons in the medium. " ->"… the high-pT charged
>> hadrons
>> spectra and compare their nuclear modification factor (RAA) in
>> different
>> collision systems".
>> LIne#40: "Then in section 3…" -> "In Section 3,…"
Line#42:
>> "Finally in
>> section 4,…" ->" Finally, in section-4,.."
>>
>> Section-2 title:
>> I would not say " hard partons" because we probe hard partons using
>> jet
>> measurement, here we measure "inclusive charged hadrons".
>> Line#47: "…event and …" -> "…event, and …" Line#51:
>> "…high-pT partons
>> …" -> "…high-pT charged hadrons …" (for reason see
>> above)
Line#54: "…we
>> are able to perform…" -> ", we perform…"
>> Line#55: "&" -> and
Line#63 ":..note that the Zr+Zr RAA is
>> systematically slightly larger due to smaller Npart,"-> I can see
>> both
>> Ru and Zr RAA are consistent within uncertainty. Hence this
>> statement is
>> not correct. Please remove this.
>> Line#69: "However, our data in peripheral collisions show that RAA
>> starts  to decrease again beyond 60%,
>> " -> However, the values of RAA in Isobar collisions with Npart< 20
>> starts to decrease up to 80%,…" LIne#71: "Currently our suspicion
>> is
>> …event selection and geometry biases.." -> I would not mention as
>> a
>> suspicion. How about. "The event selection and geometrical biases
>> may
>> contribute to this deviation at peripheral events in Isobar
>> collisions
>> like demonstrated by the HG-PYTHIA method in …"
Can you please
>> inform
>> about this HG-PYTHIA?
>> LIne#85: …more direct properties …" Can you please mention what
>> are
>> those "direct properties" of the medium? Line#94-96: This statement
>> needs a citation.
>> Line#101-102: "We hope to study the ratio…" -> "We plan to study
>> the
>> ratio…"
>> "…extract more kinetic and thermal …" ->"…extract the kinetic
>> and
>> thermal…"
>> Line#110: "…pushing our limits to the low end"  Not clear; what is
>> that
>> low end ? You need to mention.
Comment: In this section-4, it
>> would be
>> better if you could introduced what is gamma+A event is.
>> LIne#119: "For this we form pairs by selecting charged …" -> "For
>> this,
>> we…'
>> In Eq.1, you need to mention what is "n"? Like different order of
>> harmonics   Line#130: "within the measurement uncertainties" ->
>> "within
>> the uncertainties." ( all uncertainties in experiments are measured
>> uncertainties)
>> Line#131: "High activity events will be explored in future. " Not
>> required.
>> Line#133: "…    Run-25 data on √sNN = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions,"
>> ->
>> "…Run-25 data in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 200
>> GeV,"
Line#137:"…       the
>> QGP in small and medium systems, " -> "…the QGP in different
>> collision
>> systems,"
>> Line#138: "…    are shown " -> "are discussed."
>> Line#140: "…    driven by Npart,  regardless of initial
>> geometry;…" ->
>> "…driven by Npart regardless of initial geometry." (Finish this
>> sentence
>> here)
>> Line#140-142: "..although in peripheral …       .“suppression”
>> is observed ."
>> -> Start a new sentence here. "The observed suppression in
>> peripheral
>> events in isobar collisions may be due to the event selection and
>> geometry bias in the measurement."
>> Line#150: "…found, photonuclear processes with high multiplicity
>> .." ->
>> "found in the photonuclear processes with high multiplicity …"
>> Line#151: "…help us understand …" -> "…help us to
>> understand…"
>>
>> Regards,
>> Nihar
>>
>> On 2022-06-01 00:07, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>>
>>> Tong Liu (tong.liu AT yale.edu) has submitted a material for a
>> review,
>>> please
>>> have a look:
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59798
>>>
>>> ---
>>> 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