STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hello Tong,

Can you please send your updated proceedings Drupal submission link?
It seems this link doesn't work from my side.
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59798


Nihar


On 2022-07-15 23:22, Tong Liu wrote:
> 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 [1]
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > 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
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/*yiyang__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!D00DoqNoKno6xfSJTjiHvqotBsZ8HyOX-Sr9rds3_VE2DLj3cz6UxQ-r0fsiF2rntvilDvLuQcszkutadslRoM4$