STAR HardProbes PWG

[Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>]

Hi Derek,

Thanks a lot for the updated version and it indeed looks better. 

I don't have any further comments on this.

Cheers,

Yi

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 2:25 PM Derek Anderson via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> 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
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

 -- 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

_______________________________________________
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