Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

star-hp-l - Re: [Star-hp-l] Pointer to HFE Paper Proposal Page in Au+Au collisions

star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: STAR HardProbes PWG

List archive

Re: [Star-hp-l] Pointer to HFE Paper Proposal Page in Au+Au collisions

Chronological Thread  
    < Chronological >       < Thread >
  • From: Sooraj Radhakrishnan <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov>
  • To: Carl Gagliardi <c-gagliardi AT tamu.edu>, STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
  • Cc: Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>
  • Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] Pointer to HFE Paper Proposal Page in Au+Au collisions
  • Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2022 01:09:07 +0530
Hi Shenghui,
   Sorry for this delayed set of comments from me. As Barbara said, since the note was reviewed for the HFT paper I also dont have many new comments on the analysis note. Please find a couple of questions though below:

The RAA results are consistent with Run10 results for all centralities except 40-80% (Fig 55). The 40-60% centrality results are systematically higher than 40-80% centrality. How do we understand the difference, is it within uncertainties? Did you compare 40-60% for 2014 with 2010 results, are they consistent? Are the Run10 results published? 

The systematic uncertainty for PHE reconstruction efficiency is 15-20%. Is 10% of this from the TPC tracking efficiency uncertainty? Is this uncertainty better known now? Can it be reduced? What are the other major sources? PHE reconstruction efficiency is much larger than from other sources, affecting the significance of the measurement. Why are the Run10 systematic errors much smaller? Is that because of a significantly better S/B ratio?

Fig.33, the mass cut uncertainty jumps quite a lot between pT and centrality bins. Is this from poor statistics? Are the statistical fluctuations discounted in the systematic uncertainty evaluation?

The trigger threshold for HT1 is about ~80% of that of HT2, however this small variation seems to give a much larger uncertainty at lower pT (for HT1?). This also seems too large for a minor variation of threshold (the second largest of the sources and comparable to the PHE efficiency uncertainty at lower pT). Is this variation well understood? What is causing it?

Fig 46 is hard to read, do you need the scale factors on the points for each centrality?

On Fig 18, are the statistical errors from the fit or the rebinned errors from the one in Fig 17? If former, how large are the actual statistical errors?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The paper draft is very nicely written. Please find some comments on the most recent version (v1) below: 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

L49: 'especially at high pT' is not a good fit here. The low pT measurements are also important to understand the HQ dynamics and interactions with the QGP. Or may be rephrase
L72: The HFT b/c-->e paper is referenced here, but only the c and b contribution separation is pointed to. The HFT paper also has the HFE results for 0-80%. This should be pointed out and that this paper provides the results across the different centrality ranges
L96: Remove at high pT
Fig2: red band narrower than black curve? From the figure it is otherwise
L309: This needs to be phrased better. The lower pT points in peripheral collisions arent consistent within statistical and systematic errors
L327: Why chose pT > 5 GeV/c here, instead of 4 GeV/c?
L342: This (except for centrality dependence) was used in the HFT paper, wasnt?

thanks
Sooraj


 

On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 2:31 AM Carl Gagliardi via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Shenghui—

 

A voice from the peanut gallery…

 

Having been on the recent GPCs, I finally made a point to read your current draft AuAu heavy flavor electrons paper.  It looks to be in very good shape overall.  I focused on physics issues.  I didn’t pay attention to wording or grammar issues unless they really jumped out at me.  With that in mind, here are my comments:

 

General comment:  This paper would fit very well in PRC.  Not sure why it looks like you are targeting EPJ.

 

--   L100:  “with” -> “at”  (cause this is a wording detail that many people might read over)

 

--   L137:  How does the requirement for a hit in the first three TPC padrows suppress backgrounds from the beam pipe support structure?

 

--   L145:  I don’t think you mean pi^0 here.

 

--   L148:  I’m confused by the units.  0.015 looks like a Delta phi value, which would be fine.  3 looks like a number of eta strips cut, which also would be fine.  But they don’t go together.

 

--   Fig. 2:  It might be useful to change the vertical scales so the negative Unlike-Like bins remain on scale.

 

--   Sect. 3.3:  Given the previous paper and how standard embedding is, the half sentence list of embedding efficiency estimates is probably okay.  But if you don’t at least expand a bit for those cases where data-driven methods are used, you might well find that the referee asks that you expand on all the estimates here.

 

--   L253-55:  It would be useful to characterize these HDE subtractions as fractions of the corrected NPE yield.

 

--   L263:  I assume that this 3.5% uncertainty is a carry-over from the pp paper that was based on 2012 data.  However, the uncertainty was larger for 2013 (+/-5%), and I don’t remember that a separate calibration was ever performed for 2014.  If not, I don’t see how we can claim precision better than the previous year, where detailed calibrations were performed.

     Note:  You shouldn’t need to perform a completely new estimate for the trigger efficiency.  It should be fine simply to scale up your existing numbers by 5/3.5 (or whatever is the “right” number for 2014).

     Mea culpa:  I should have caught this in the “mass ordering” paper.  Sorry!

 

--   Fig. 5:  I’m sorry, but nothing is visible on an 18-decade log plot.  It would really help to reformat this figure in a way that permits a vastly expanded vertical scale.

 

--   L309-10:  The statement that the STAR and PHENIX results are consistent is true overall.  But there is clearly a systematic difference between the 40-80% results with 3.5 < pT < 5 GeV/c.  I remember that we discussed this a bit in the mass ordering paper GPC.  But it won’t surprise me a bit if the referee asks about the difference.  So it might be useful to take one more look now, just to be sure.

 

--   L325:  “date” -> “data”  (I just couldn’t just read past this particular wording edit.)

 

--   L332-33:  You are being very “generous” in your characterization of the difference between your results and PHSD.

 

Nice work!

Carl

 

 

From: Star-hp-l <star-hp-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> On Behalf Of zhang08--- via Star-hp-l
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 10:29 PM
To: zhang08 AT mail.ustc.edu.cn; STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Cc: Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] Pointer to HFE Paper Proposal Page in Au+Au collisions

 

Dear convener, Are there any comments for the paper draft and analysis note of our AuAu HFE analysis? I have not gotten any responses for a lone time.⁠ Best, Shenghui -----原始邮件----- 发件人:⁠"zhang08--- via Star-hp-l" <star-hp-l@⁠lists.⁠bnl.⁠gov>

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Dear convener,

 

Are there any comments for the paper draft and analysis note of our AuAu HFE analysis? I have not gotten any responses for a lone time.

 

Best,

Shenghui



-----原始邮件-----
发件人:"zhang08--- via Star-hp-l" <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
发送时间:2022-06-17 09:58:24 (星期五)
收件人: "Barbara Trzeciak" <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>
抄送: "Yi Yang" <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>, "STAR HardProbes PWG" <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
主题: Re: [Star-hp-l] Pointer to HFE Paper Proposal Page in Au+Au collisions

Hi Barbara, all,

 

Thank you for Barbara's nice comments. Please find the updated version in the following link.

 

For Barbara, please find my replies to your nice comments in the following link.

 

Certainly, you can also access thees links by our paper webpage.

 

Best,

Shenghui




-----原始邮件-----
发件人:"Barbara Trzeciak" <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>
发送时间:2022-06-15 21:02:10 (星期三)
收件人: "Yi Yang" <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>, "STAR HardProbes PWG" <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
抄送: zhang08 AT mail.ustc.edu.cn
主题: Re: [Star-hp-l] Pointer to HFE Paper Proposal Page in Au+Au collisions

Hi Shenghui, PAs,

 

Please find my comments to your very nice and clear paper draft below.

In general everything looks good to me, and I think the draft is good to go after the comments are addressed.

And do you keep JHEP as the target journal ?

Since the AN was already reviewed and approved for the b->e paper, I don't have additional comments on it. 

 

Cheers,

Barbara

 

L42:  is the negligible ->  is negligible

L106: Experimetnally -> Experimentally

L108: I wouldn't list Hadron contamination within these points, just  add afterwards that the sample of electrons is not pure and contains hadron contamination. Or, change Experimetnally identified electrons to Experimentally identified electron candidates

L120: non-photonic electron -> non-photonic electrons

L129: to suppress -> in order to suppress

L143-144: I would mention here if you use energy measured within a BEMC tower or cluster

Fig. 1 caption: while Boxes represent -> while boxes represent

Fig. 1: I would split it into two figures, the upper and lower rows separately. 

Fig. 2 c): it' shard to see the unc. of the fit and differences between different contributions. If possible, please make the max value of the y axis smaller - you can e..g. split the legend into two columns to have more space. 

L197: gamma -> photon

Sec. 3.3: you don't give much details here. If the idea is that you refer to the other paper, you should write this explicitly here, saying that the methods used here are the same (or follow closely) what was done in other measurements in Ref. [43].

L260-261:  Uncertainties in simulating the HT trigger threshold (± 3.5%) as well as the BSMD identification efficiency are also taken into account -> it's not clear how you estimate these uncertainties.

Tab. 1: for 40-80% unc. on the electron purity is listed up to 76%. It's not clear to me which point on the purity plot has such large uncertainty. Could you please give more details. Also, for the PHE identification efficiency numbers in the AN are lower than 70%.

- Results: I know that you discussed the significance of the difference between the data and PHSD in the replies to PWGC preview. But I think we can still say that PHSD is systematically below our central points for pT > 5 GeV/c.

- It would be good to add Ncoll and Npart values for a given centrality class

- Global uncertainties are not discussed, only mentioned in the figure's caption.

 

 

 

 

 

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 6:01 AM Yi Yang via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Shenghui,

 

I will need another 2-3 weeks to finish your note and draft. 

 

Cheers,

Yi

 

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 11:29 AM zhang08--- via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi All,

 

Do you have any comments or suggestions for our paper draft of inclusive HFE production?

 

Best,

Shenghui


-----原始邮件-----
发件人:zhang08 AT mail.ustc.edu.cn
发送时间:2022-05-27 15:13:40 (星期五)
收件人: star-hf-l AT lists.bnl.gov, Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
抄送:
主题: Pointer to HFE Paper Proposal Page in Au+Au collisions

Hi All,

 

The analysis of inclusive HFE production in 200 GeV Au+Au collisions are ready for PWG review. Please find analysis note and paper draft below. The analysis note is same as that for b->e paper, and reviewed and signed off by PWG and GPC except updating the figure of  RAA vs pT distribution using Duke and PHSD model and adding the RAA vs Npart distribution shown on page 62 of analysis note. You can also find our reply for the comments of PWGC preview below.

 

 

Any comments or suggestions are welcomed.

 

Best,

Shenghui

 

_______________________________________________
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

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page