STAR HardProbes PWG

[Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>]

Hi Derek, 

nice proceedings, please see my comments below. With these addressed, I sign off.

Cheers, 

Barbara

L27: parton off of -> parton off

L27-28: soft-scattering in-medium -> in-medium soft scatterings

L47-48: I would suggest to remove bold font from Mixed Event

L52: in p+p and central Au+Au collisions 

L55, 56: keep units in the same line as 200

L64: satisfying the trigger ? 

L69: you can remove "statistically", you have further "statistical subtraction"

L76: bing -> being

L92: adjusted -> smeared (?)

L99: I would add that you're showing results for two E_T ranges: 11 < E_T^trigg < 15 GeV and 15 < E_T^trigg < 20 GeV

And I agree with Sooraj that it would be beneficial to add back the PYTHIA comparison for acoplanarity in p+p

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 9:42 PM Sooraj Radhakrishnan via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Derek,

   Thanks for the update and the responses. Please find a few further comments to the updated version below. In general the new version reads much more smooth. I would suggest to add back the PYTHIA comparison for pp acoplanarity, which is also quite important to show. The figure sizes are large and I think you could find way to include. May be could combine as a separate panel on Fig.3

L21: Remove 'meidum induced'

L34: I see you removed the discussion on prompt photons. Its fine, but the earlier version read more complete

L42: distribution for gamma_dir and pi0 triggers

L64: satisfying,?

L76: being

L87: Just say p_T,jet^ch is used to denote the pt after unfolding

L93: Need to say agreement observed for what

L97: Isnt this the ratio of per-trigger yields?

L97: over that with R_jet = 0.5

L100: If there is space I suggest everywhere to change 0.2 recoil etc to R_jet = 0.2 recoil

L130: excess was found in wide Delta phi angles? Isnt it better to say broadening of Delta phi distributions was observed?

thanks

Sooraj

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 5:13 PM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Derek,

Please find my comment and suggestions below on your nice proceedings.

L8: "high-statistics measurements" -> "the measurements"
L9: high-E_T -> high transverse energy (E_{T})
L15-16: "We report recoil jet yield and trigger-jet acoplanarity
distributions for jets with pT > 5 GeV/c." -> We present the jet R
dependence of suppression, intra-jet broadening, and acoplanarity
measurements of $\pi^{0}$+jet and $\gamma$+jet for trigger E_{T} between
9-20 GeV.
(Here mentioning "p_T > 5 GeV/c" is less important than the trigger
energy range)

Italic text "energy loss" , "broadening", etc. not required. Roman is
OK.

Introduction:

L18: "a hot, dense medium" -> "a hot-dense medium" or "a hot and dense
medium"
L24" (energy loss)" -> if you mention "transport of energy outside of
the reconstructed jet cone" then I would suggest to us "(energy
redistribution in the medium) instead of "energy loss".
L26: "…due to Sudakov radiation, but the presence" -> "due to Sudakov
radiation. The presence…"
L28: "quasi-particles," "multiple soft-scattering in-medium,", "medium
wakes." Please provide reference to all these.
L34: " γdir are color neutral, they do not…" -> "γdir is color neutral
and does not…"
L36: "…the hard interaction which generated  them and so provide" ->
"…the hard interaction and so provides…"   (that part is redundant here)
L37: "from the same interaction. " -> "from it."
L43: "Previously STAR measured…triggers[6]"-> "Previously STAR reported
the suppression of yield of charged hadrons from the gamm_dir+hadrons
and \pi0+hadrons correlations measurement[6]."
L49-50: "Thus, in these proceedings we…" -> "In these proceedings, we…"
L51: "in order to -> to

Fig.1 Caption:
Measured IAA for -> Fig.1: The IAA  for…"

Analysis details

L54: "a 14 nb−1 sample of √sNN = 200 " -> "a 10 nb^-1 sample of √sNN =
200 " [as per last BUR, to be consistent with]
L67 and 68: "   (B) – the " and "gdir - was"  There should not be gap
between em-dash and a word (check elsewhere like L105)
L72: "from TPC tracks" -> "from the TPC tracks"
L73: "in FASTJET 3" -> "in FastJet"
L74: R_jet -> R (to be consistent with the Figures) elsewhere
L76: "one bing a " -> "one being that "
L76 and 77: p_{T,jet}^{raw,ch} -> p_{T,jet}^{reco,ch} [these are reco
level not raw level]
And also you need to define what is "p_{T,jet}^{reco,ch} " in the text.
L81: a ME subtraction as in -> a ME subtraction method as in
L82: No ME subtraction was…were small." ->In $p$+$p$ collisions, no
additional background correction is applied due to negligible effect
only at very low jet p_{T} ( < 1 GeV/c).

Results and Discussion
L93: "Agreement was…" -> "The agreement was …"
           In this case, this does not tell to the readers which results
show this agreement. You need to point out either figure number or the
measurement.
L95-98: Can you please break this into two sentences? Without using
","";" and ":"
L98: "          the measured IAA " -> "the value of IAA as a function of
p_{T,jet}^{ch}
  "While fig.2 shows the measured….triggers" -> and Fig.2 shows the
R^0.2/0.5 as a function of p_{T,jet}^{ch} for …"

L100: In fig. 1,…-> In Fig. 1,  "that the 0.2 recoil jets…" -> "that the
recoil jets with R=0.2…" ; "than the 0.5 recoil jets…" -> "than the
R=0.5, indicating…'
"(i.e. the 0.2 IAA is less than the 0.5 IAA), " Not required.
L103: "However, we see that the …" -> "However, the…"  (not needed to
mention multiple time "we see that")
L109: "…for 9 - 11 GeV π0 triggers …" Please mention what is this 9-11
GeV is. Like E_{T} similarly in L116
L111: "…energy resolution present in the data. " It would be good for
reader to mention in a parenthesis that those results have not been
shown in these proceedings. Something like:
"…energy resolution present in the data (corresponding plots are not
included in these proceedings).
L115: "Lastly, in fig. 3 we …" -> "Lastly, in Fig. 3, we …"
L119-120: "This is a clear observation of medium-induced broadening of
the acoplanarity distribution." -> "This is a clear observation of
medium-induced acoplanarity between gamma_dir and pi0 trigger with
respect to their recoil jets in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC. "

Fig.3 Caption:
_ "Fully corrected Rjet = 0.5 ∆φ…" [Remember this is not a fully
corrected Delta phi distribution, we need to correct the X-axis, so
please rephrase this.]
_"Vertical lines indicate statistical error, and boxes indicate
systematic uncertainties." -> "The filled and opened boxes represent the
uncorrelated and correlated systematic uncertainties, respectively."
_Need to add "The statistical errors are within the marker size."

Summary:

L125: "…the semi-inclusive yields and acoplanarity of γdir+jet and
π0+jet in …" -> "the suppression of recoil jet yields, intra-jet
broadening, and the recoil jet acoplanarity of γdir and π0 triggers in
…"
  L127-128: "The  ratios IAA and R0.2/0.5 … yields" Drop this not needed.
Only final conclusions are required in Summary.
L130: "An excess was found in the Rjet = 0.5 …the acoplanarity
distribution." -> "An excess yield at low \Delta\phi is observed for
recoil jets with R=0.5 in central Au+Au collisions relative to p+p
baseline (PYTHIA-8), alluding the medium-induced acoplanarity in the QGP
medium."


Cheers
Nihar

On 2022-07-28 11:53, Derek Anderson via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Hi Yi and Sooraj,
>
> Thanks for the feedback! Please find the latest draft in the link
> below, where I've incorporated your suggestions as well as comments I
> received offline. The text has been streamlined substantially, and I
> opted to remove the pp and R = 0.2 AuAu acoplanarity so as to
> emphasize the R = 0.5 result. I've also included a few responses
> inlined below!
>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AndersonDerek_ProceedingsQM22.v2_0.pdf
>
> Responses to Yi:
>
>> - L86: Do you have any idea how "small" it should be? Any reference?
>
>
> You can find some discussion of the fragmentation contribution in the
> 2010 gamma-hadron paper [PRC 82, 034909 (2010)]. I opted to remove
> this sentence and simply state that the hadronic subtraction does not
> remove fragmentation photons.
>
>> - L126: "the details of the un folding procedure (e.g. the choice of
>  regularization and prior), and the uncertainty on B." I don't
> understand this sentence. What is "B"?
>
> B here refers to the background level of the gamma-rich triggers
> (defined shortly after the TSP is introduced). In the interest of
> streamlining the text, though, I opted to remove this sentence.
>
>>   - L163 and Figure 1: the green line is the pi^0 and gamma_dir +jet
> combined in p+p? If so, just for my own education, why don't you
> separate them in p+p as in Au+Au?
>
> I added some text which I think should clarify this, but pi0 and
> gamma-dir triggers are not combined in pp in the R0.2/0.5 plot. The
> upper panel is the ratio for pi0 triggers in AuAu and pi0 triggers in
> pp, and the lower panel is the ratio for gamma-dir triggers in AuAu
> and gamma-dir triggers in pp.
>
> Responses to Sooraj:
>
>> L108: Why a different symbol for Deltaphi here?
>
> Typo!
>
>> L109: why say in the measured Delta phi distributions here? The pT
> axis also has correction, and the pT projected measurements also,
> doesnt?
>
> What I was trying to say there was just that since the delta-phi
> measurement is 2D, we have to unfold for both the jet pT and
> delta-phi. I've reworked this sentence to be more clear in version 2.
> You can also find some details on the delta-phi correction procedure
> in slide 28 of my QM presentation or in many of the talks Nihar has
> given to the PWG:
>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AndersonTalk_QM2022.v11_manualAnimations_0.pdf
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Jun2021Jetcorr.pdf
>
>> L113: Any uncertainties or expectations on if this factorization is
> expected to hold? It would be good to state
>
> If I remember correctly, we don't have any hard numbers and I don't
> think we've checked the correction procedure _without _factorization
> yet. Hence, I opted just to remove this statement.
>
>> L121: shifted and smeared to match those in the data?
>
> That's correct! I've reworded it to be more clear.
>
>> L175: why spell out trigger smeared here and not in the IAA
> discussion?
>
> To be honest, I was just inconsistent. I've removed that phrase from
> the proceedings in version 2 (all PYTHIA-8 curves are assumed to be
> trigger-smeared).
>
> Common responses:
>
>> [Yi]  - General: the overall layout is very strange. Figure 1 is on
> page 2, but it is mentioned on page 5. Figure 2 is in the introduction
> part, but it is mentioned in the Results and Discussion. I understand
> you have lots to show, so I don't have any good solution for you.
> Probably remove one or two plots?
>
>> [Sooraj] It would be better to place the figures near the
> discussion. You have Fig.1 on page 2, but its discussed only on P5
>
> The layout in version 1 was definitely awkward, and it was motivated
> by trying to make room for everything. The layout in version 2 is
> similar, but after cutting plots and text there's room for things to
> move. Let me know if you still would like the plots to be closer to
> the discussion!
>
>> [Yi]   - L34: I am a bit confused with this sentence "photons
> scattered from energetic photons", do you mean "photons scattered from
> energetic partons"? I probably miss something here.
>
>> [Sooraj] L34: 'photons scattered from energetic photons': what do
> you mean here? do you want to say scattering of initial hard partons
>
> Yep! That was a typo. In streamlining the text, though, this sentence
> has been completely removed.
>
>  -- Derek
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 6:01 PM Sooraj Radhakrishnan
> <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov> wrote:
>
>> Hi Derek, Thanks for preparing these nice proceedings.⁠​ Please
>> find a few comments from me below L34:⁠​ 'photons scattered from
>> energetic photons':⁠​ what do you mean here? do you want to say
>> scattering of initial hard partons L53:⁠​ Previously,
>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
>>
>> This Message Is From an External Sender
>> This message came from outside your organization.
>>
>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
>> Hi Derek,
>> Thanks for preparing these nice proceedings. Please find a few
>> comments from me below
>>
>> L34: 'photons scattered from energetic photons': what do you mean
>> here? do you want to say scattering of initial hard partons
>> L53: Previously, (also STAR had?)
>> L58: STAR previously also has
>> L74: done in previous measurements
>> L99: pedestal
>> L108: pT^reco,ch is not defined
>> L108: Why a different symbol for Deltaphi here?
>> L109: why say in the measured Delta phi distributions here? The pT
>> axis also has correction, and the pT projected measurements also,
>> doesnt?
>> L113: Any uncertainties or expectations on if this factorization is
>> expected to hold? It would be good to state
>> L121: shifted and smeared to match those in the data?
>> L122: dont have to repeat trigger-smeared here
>> L135: the line is needlessly broken here
>> L138: It would be better to place the figures near the discussion.
>> You have Fig.1 on page 2, but its discussed only on P5
>> L166: p_T,jet^ch is also not defined
>> L175: why spell out trigger smeared here and not in the IAA
>> discussion?
>> L189: You need to have a summary for the proceedings
>>
>> thanks
>> Sooraj
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:43 PM Yi Yang via Star-hp-l
>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Derek,
>>
>> I have some comments on v1.0 for your consideration.
>> - General: the overall layout is very strange. Figure 1 is on page
>> 2, but it is mentioned on page 5. Figure 2 is in the introduction
>> part, but it is mentioned in the Results and Discussion. I
>> understand you have lots to show, so I don't have any good solution
>> for you. Probably remove one or two plots?
>> - L33: with with --> with
>> - Figure 1: Please explain the colors in the plots, dark red
>> (blue) and light red (blue) are...
>> - L34: I am a bit confused with this sentence "photons scattered
>> from energetic photons", do you mean "photons scattered from
>> energetic partons"? I probably miss something here.
>> - Figure 2 Caption: PYTHIA-8 (MONASH tune) --> PYTHIA-8 with
>> MONASH tune
>> - L51: [7] should be [5]  (just the number...)
>> - L56: [5] should be [6]
>> - L60: [6] should be [7]
>> - L64: at STAR --> at STAR in p+p and Au+Au collisions.
>> - L67: should mention the collision energies for both p+p and
>> Au+Au collisions here. Which year for p+p data?
>> - L71: probably you don't need "(BEMC)" since you didn't use it
>> later.
>> - L86: Do you have any idea how "small" it should be? Any
>> reference?
>> - L93: In Au+Au --> In Au+Au collisions
>> - L99: pedestat --> _pedestal_
>> _  - L103: _ Au+Au --> Au+Au collisions
>> - L116: PYTHIA-8 (MONASH tune) --> PYTHIA-8 with MONASH tune
>> - L126: "the details of the un folding procedure (e.g. the choice
>> of  regularization and prior), and the uncertainty on B." I don't
>> understand this sentence. What is "B"?
>> - Figure 3 Caption: PYTHIA-8 (MONASH tune) --> PYTHIA-8 with
>> MONASH tune
>> - L135: It is empty after "Au+Au"
>> - L157: in figure 2 --> in Fig. 2
>> - L158:  PYTHIA-8 (MONASH tune) --> PYTHIA-8 with MONASH tune
>> - L163 and Figure 1: the green line is the pi^0 and gamma_dir +jet
>> combined in p+p? If so, just for my own education, why don't you
>> separate them in p+p as in Au+Au?
>> - L171: In figure 3 --> In Fig. 3
>> - L175: PYTHIA-8 (MONASH tune) --> PYTHIA-8 with MONASH tune
>> - L179: figure 4 --> Fig. 4
>>
>> - L182: figure 4 --> Fig. 4
>> * If you don't have enough space, I would suggest only showing one
>> R value in Fig. 3 and Fig 4, say only showing R = 0.5 plots for p+p
>> and Au+Au.
>> - References: the journals should the standard abbreviation, like
>> PRC --> Phys. Rev. C
>>
>> 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 Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 10:59 PM Derek Anderson via Star-hp-l
>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I wanted to give a heads-up on these: I'm currently working on some
>> comments I received offline and will upload a new version of the
>> proceedings later today. The main changes will be a substantial
>> reduction and streamlining of the text so that the figures can be
>> made to be much larger.
>>
>> -- Derek
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 9:20 PM Derek Anderson
>> <derekwigwam9 AT tamu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've implemented some comments received offline, and now the
>> proceedings are an even 6 pages. The new version of the proceedings
>> can be found in the link below!
>>
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AndersonDerek_ProceedingsQM22.v1_0.pdf
>> [2]
>>
>> -- Derek
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:50 AM Derek Anderson
>> <derekwigwam9 AT tamu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Apologies for the extreme tardiness on this, but please find in the
>> previous message the 1st draft of my QM2022 proceedings. Currently,
>> they're sitting at 7 pages (parallel talks are limited to 6), so
>> I'll be working on cutting things down... However, the general
>> structure and details are there, so please let me know if you have
>> any comments, suggestions, or questions!
>>
>> -- Derek
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:43 AM webmaster--- via Star-hp-l
>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Star-hp-l@⁠lists.⁠bnl.⁠gov members, Derek Anderson
>> (dmawxc@⁠physics.⁠tamu.⁠edu) has submitted a material for a
>> review, please have a look:⁠
>>
> https:⁠//urldefense.⁠com/v3/__https:⁠//drupal.⁠star.⁠bnl.⁠gov/STAR/node/60365__;!!KwNVnqRv!CQALOlOwx9nJLsVVc5DR6vnxfeNkDSojxPl5XmN4KJR8n7M3oEr2jU8Yt0Luj_6PpYaSA_4sLL0cwBK1oaRQmMVblPrj4A$
>>
>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
>>
>> This Message Is From an External Sender
>> This message came from outside your organization.
>>
>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
>>
>> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>
>> Derek Anderson (dmawxc AT physics.tamu.edu) has submitted a material
>> for a
>> review, please have a look:
>>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/60365__;!!KwNVnqRv!CQALOlOwx9nJLsVVc5DR6vnxfeNkDSojxPl5XmN4KJR8n7M3oEr2jU8Yt0Luj_6PpYaSA_4sLL0cwBK1oaRQmMVblPrj4A$
>>
>>
>> ---
>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l__;!!KwNVnqRv!CQALOlOwx9nJLsVVc5DR6vnxfeNkDSojxPl5XmN4KJR8n7M3oEr2jU8Yt0Luj_6PpYaSA_4sLL0cwBK1oaRQmMXx0Ozs_w$
>  _______________________________________________
> Star-hp-l mailing list
> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l [3]
>  _______________________________________________
> Star-hp-l mailing list
> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l [3]
>
> --
>
> 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 [4]
>
> Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/*yiyang__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!FXE6vI6jqW4kMB5WHydjSZaaCCM7BpPE0xknTg1STobkZXBFCQp3Tb-2LSC0B3EqPL4SgF0PVLwZCst34AocRCK7nA$
> [2]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AndersonDerek_ProceedingsQM22.v1_0.pdf__;!!KwNVnqRv!G2VRR9EwIYx03Ufcy8CelsXri76ksc2A0BQ77pyjG5GnLBd4XELjCdk0OuNDtnKKy8FCOzmzQWEDhRmr9MfpG7f48RkxLoMH$
> [3]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l__;!!KwNVnqRv!G2VRR9EwIYx03Ufcy8CelsXri76ksc2A0BQ77pyjG5GnLBd4XELjCdk0OuNDtnKKy8FCOzmzQWEDhRmr9MfpG7f48ef1JktX$
> [4] 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

--

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

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