STAR HardProbes PWG

[Diptanil Roy <roydiptanil AT gmail.com>]

Hi Sooraj, thank you. I have implemented most of your feedback in v5. https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/QMProceeding_Diptanil_v5.pdf

Some inline comments are here:

L51: All the measurements are in pT of the jet, where are the ET used? Isnt the analysis using only track jets? If its the trigger please discuss separately

We are using full-jets, and we only include towers where ET > 0.2 GeV after hadronic correction.

L63: How the sPlot weights are used in the analysis is not mentioned. The discussion reads incomplete

I added a line to explain it better (L63-64). Space is the biggest constraint in this regard. I am exactly at 6 pages now.

L73: Why the jet reconstruction efficiency and correction factors are not pointed to here?

I don't do a separate correction for jet reconstruction efficiency. They are taken into account in the unfolding, in terms of fakes and misses.

L93: what is a single-particle jet?

This is a single particle (uniformly generated between 1-30 GeV), smeared using fast simulation and embedded in a minimum bias AuAu event. I have added a reference for this method.

L133: difference relative to? Given the error bars are quite large, the physics conclusion is weak and could be avoided

I meant to say it's not different between centralities, which is redundant with the previous sentence. I removed it

Please let me know if you have any further comments.

On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 8:39 PM Sooraj Radhakrishnan <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov> wrote:

Hi Diptanil,

   Thanks for preparing these nice proceedings. I sign off with a few comments

L31: could help better understand the parton mass dependence of energy loss

L46: by using the excellent track pointing resolution provided by the Heavy Flavor Tracker (HFT). The comparison to TPC resolution can be removed here

L51: All the measurements are in pT of the jet, where are the ET used? Isnt the analysis using only track jets? If its the trigger please discuss separately

L63: How the sPlot weights are used in the analysis is not mentioned. The discussion reads incomplete 

L73: Why the jet reconstruction efficiency and correction factors are not pointed to here?

L79: should be phi_jet in the formula?

L92: Better to remove the paragraph breaking here 

L93: what is a single-particle jet?

L133: difference relative to? Given the error bars are quite large, the physics conclusion is weak and could be avoided

thanks

Sooraj

On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 10:24 PM Yi Yang via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Diptanil,

Thanks a lot for the explanations! It helps a lot and makes more sense to me now.

Cheers,

Yi

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 12:39 AM Diptanil Roy <roydiptanil AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Barbara, thank you for your feedback. I have implemented all the suggested changes in v4 here. https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/QMProceeding_Diptanil_v4.pdf

Hi Yi, thank you for signing off. Please find some responses to your questions below.

1. - The R_CP (Figure 2 right) is larger than 1 (but ALICE results are still smaller than 1), what does that mean? Does it mean that you have more recombined D0-jet in the central collisions?

A: We are only looking at D0 pT > 5 GeV here. I do not have a concrete answer for why the RCP is ~1, but I think this is an artifact of low statistics in those bins (for peripheral collisions) more than anything else. Once the results are finalized for D0 > 1 GeV, we will have more statistics, and then I can comment further.

2. - The underlying assumption is what you described in L79 - 88 (the MC sample you generated for unfolding). Did you try different PYTHIA tunes?

A: The underlying PYTHIA tune definitely affects the RCP. We tried multiple tunes of PYTHIA (MONASH, STAR, STAR-HF, b->D0 sample), and all of them produced 'hard' D0 jets. Reweighting the prior to make it 'softer' did affect our RCP which is why we had to specify the observable as RCP* (* denoting the underlying PYTHIA tune assumption). We are currently working on how we can address this issue of an incorrect prior from PYTHIA, without the knowledge of D0 jet pT spectra from pp.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 12:15 PM Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Diptanil,

Thanks a lot for the updated version. It looks good to me. 

I have some follow-up questions just for my own education: 

  - The R_CP (Figure 2 right) is larger than 1 (but ALICE results are still smaller than 1), what does that mean? Does it mean that you have more recombined D0-jet in the central collisions? 

  - The underlying assumption is what you described in L79 - 88 (the MC sample you generated for unfolding). Did you try different PYTHIA tunes? 

 

Cheers,

Yi

On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 10:45 PM Diptanil Roy <roydiptanil AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Yi, thank you for your feedback. I have implemented all of your suggestions. It's available here. https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/QMProceeding_Diptanil_v3.pdf

Please find some comments below:

- The reference style looks a bit strange to me, could you please double check it? 

I used the unsorted bibtex style (unsrt), with the following changes: a) No titles of the work (as they take up a lot of space), b) Collaboration names instead of authors et al for STAR, ALICE, CMS etc..

- do you have any idea why the Rcp is increasing as pT increases? It is not only different from the inclusive jet, but also, I believe, is different from the D0 Rcp.

I don't have a good answer for this one yet. You are right about this being different from both inclusive jets and D0 Rcp. An ALICE result from QM (https://indico.cern.ch/event/895086/contributions/4715836/attachments/2422376/4146482/QM_HFjetsCorr_MM_0604.pdf#page=25) also shows the same trend.

- Is it possible due to the underlying assumption you mentioned (I think you have a systematic covered it, right)?

Could you please clarify which underlying assumption you meant?

Please let me know if there are any further comments on the proceedings.

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 3:32 AM Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Diptanil,

Thanks a lot for the updated version, very interesting results and well written!  

I only have some minor comments/suggestions for your consideration. 

  - General: are you using full jets or charged jets? It would be great to be more specific on it.

  - L22: [3] , and --> [3] and

  - L24: Add the reference for "the dead-cone effect" (Dokshitzer YL, Khoze VA, Troian SI. On specific QCD properties of heavy quark fragmentation (‘dead cone’) J. Phys. G. 1991;17,:1602–1604? 

   - L32: pT --> (pT) 

   - L36 - L37: "The event selections ... in Ref. [9]" --> You probably don't need this sentence since you have a similar one in L47 (up to you)

   - L48: I am not sure people outside STAT understand what "tower" means (they can guess, I think). I would suggest modifying them to "TPC tracks and ECAL towers". 

   - L49: respectively --> , respectively

   - L54 - L57: These sentences read a bit "complex" to me, I would suggest modifying them to "Jets with a D0(D ̄ 0) constituent with pT,D0 ∈ (5, 10) GeV/c are considered a "D0 tagged jet" for this analysis"

    - L58: Spectrum --> Spectra

    - L67: , Nevt --> , and Nevt

    - L70: , and finite  --> , finite 

    - L86: Add the reference for GEANT

    - L96: a two-dimensional --> the aforementioned 

    - L115: strong --> stronger 

    - L118: at RHIC. [3]. --> at RHIC [3].   (you got an extra period)

    - Figure 2: I would move it after L118. 

    - Figure 3: I would move it after L125.   (Personally, I prefer to see the text first...)

    - The reference style looks a bit strange to me, could you please double check it? 

Just for my own education and interest: do you have any idea why the Rcp is increasing as pT increases? It is not only different from the inclusive jet, but also, I believe, is different from the D0 Rcp. Is it possible due to the underlying assumption you mentioned (I think you have a systematic covered it, right)? 

Cheers,

Yi

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 3:16 PM Diptanil Roy via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Nihar, thank you for your comments. I have uploaded a new version (v2) with the new version attached. https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/QMProceeding_Diptanil_v2.pdf

in Eq.2 and L79:  "r" -> make it italic (because  r has some value) and
elsewhere

L118:  bring "in the left panel of Figure 3" at the end of the sentence;
  (r) -> ($r$)

I am keeping it 'r' because the preliminary plots have 'r', and I have used it for nothing previously.

Please let me know if you have any comments/suggestions.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 6:37 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Diptanil,

My comment and suggestion can be found below on your nice proceedings.

Title: add "in STAR"

General:
1_ Don't use any italic font through out this proceedings
2_ Fig-1, you mention D-mesons you reconstruct between pT: 5-10 GeV/c;
but though out the paper you use pT > 5 GeV/c, which one you have used
for the calculation of radial profile and D tagged jet pT?  Is there any
counts above pT > 10 GeV/c.


L8: "…reconstruction …" -> "… the reconstruction …"
L18-19:"The partons which give rise to these jets lose energy to the QGP
medium, either through collisions, or through induced gluon
bremsstrahlung - a phenomenon known as jet quenching [2]" -> "The
hard-scattered partons lose energy, either through collisions or through
medium-induced gluon bremsstrahlung, while traversing through the QGP
medium "em dash" a phenomenon …"  [no "hyphen"; see usage of "hyphen"
and "em-dash"]
L16: "…are useful in studying …" -> "   …are used to study…"
L17: "One such probe, called jets, manifests …" -> "Jet, one of such
probes, manifests …"
L21-22: "…in measurements of energy-loss .." -> we do not measure
"energy-loss" in heavy-ion collisions; RAA, IAA, etc are the way to
assess that. Please rephrase this statement. ;  "jet-structure " -> "jet
structure "
L24: "…of the aforementioned parton energy loss …" -> "…of the parton
energy loss…" [no needed as you are referring in the same sentence]
L25: "An important prediction of QCD, the dead-cone effect was measured"
- > "The dead-cone effect, as predicted by the QCD, was observed…" 
[here dead-cone is the object in the sentence; "QCD prediction" is extra
info…];
"…at LHC[], but remains…" -> "… at the LHC[], but this remains… " [LHC
-> the LHC all places]

"*Presented at Quark Matter 2022…" -> you could bring that to the
"Acknowledgment" at the end.
L27-29: "Heavy flavor jets at LHC… the parton masses. Therefore…" I
think this sentence is not needed to mention why it is important at LHC
and (in the next stentence "the complementary RHIC.." it seems
downgrading RHIC measurement. Please rephrase this or remove the LHC
sentence.

  L32: "jet pT spectra" -> "jet transverse momentum (pT) spectra"
L33: "…in D^0 (Dbar^0) meson tagged jet from Au+Au…" -> "…in its tagged
jets in Au+Au …"

L36: "          ‘Minimum Bias’(MB) " -> no italic and without quotation marks;
L37: "          at nucleon-nucleon center of mass energy of  sqrt(s_NN)=200 GeV,
collected" -> "… at sqrt(s_NN)=200 GeV collected…" [ not needed as you
mention sqrt(s_NN)=200 GeV; that is enough]

L40: "          the STAR pseudorapidity " -> "the pseudorapidity "
L51: "E_T > 0.2 GeV" mention what is E_T? " are defined using "-> "are
reconstructed using…"
L52 "FASTJET" -> FastJet"
L58: "…D^0() candidate as a constituent. " -> "… D^0() as one of the
constituents."
L68: "…finite vertex resolution, based on…" -> "…finite vertex
resolution based on…"
L73: elpsilon_corr -> can you please elaborate? How do you calculate
from all the above contributions ?  Need some info here.

Eq.1 : Can you give some space between N_evt, pT, dPt, etc?

In Eq.2 and L79:  "r" -> make it italic (because  r has some value) and
elsewhere

L93:  "  … ‘single-particle’ … "  ->    " ..single-particle…" ;
         " embedding single-particle jets in MB Au+Au events" Can you
please correct me if you have embed (single-particle carrying whole
energy) a jet or multiple jets in MB events? From your statement you
embedded multiple jets in an event.
L94: Mention your jet matching criteria
L98: Njet -> "$N_{\rm jet}$
L102: "b) systematics from …" -> Need to mention what you have used from
this ref[9], for example, systematic procedures, method, or directly you
use percentages of uncertainty to calculate systematic uncertainty
L104: "…are estimated…" -> "…are determined…"
L108-109: "…is shown in the left panel of Figure 2, as a function of …
Au+Au collisions." ->" …is shown as a function of … Au+Au collisions in
in the left panel of Figure 2."
L111: "         The nuclear modification factor, R_CP…" -> Define R_CP in this
sentence.

Fig.2: In the caption or in the text, you need to mention about blue and
green uncertainties bands due to N_coll.

L113-115; This whole sentence you can shorten by saying " The D^0 tagged
jet R_cp shows a strong suppression in central collisions than in
mid-central collisions at low pT,jet."
L116: "…bins, which …" -> "…bins which …"

Fig-3: Caption: use period at the end.

L118:  bring "in the left panel of Figure 3" at the end of the sentence;
  (r) -> ($r$)
L125: "In this proceedings, the first…" - "The first…"
L128: "…collisions, with the …" -> "…collisions with…"
L130: "         , which is qualitatively  different from inclusive jets. " Make
a new sentence. "This trend is qualitatively different from the
inclusive jet measurements at RHIC.
L130: "The radial profiles …" -> "The radial profile of D^0 meson in its
tagged jets …"   ; "bins, within…" -> "…bins within…"


Cheers
Nihar


On 2022-07-06 20:05, Diptanil Roy via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Hi everyone, please find the first draft of the Quark Matter 2022
> proceedings above. Please let me know your comments on the same. The
> last date for submitting the proceedings is August 1, 2022.
>
> Thank you.
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 10:33 AM webmaster--- via Star-hp-l
> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
>> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>
>> Diptanil Roy (roydiptanil AT gmail.com) has submitted a material for a
>> review,
>> please have a look:
>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/60186
>>
>> ---
>> 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
>
> --
>
> ~ Neil
> _______________________________________________
> Star-hp-l mailing list
> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l

--

~ Neil

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

--

~ Neil

--

~ Neil

_______________________________________________
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

--

~ Neil