Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

star-hp-l - Re: [Star-hp-l] (LRP discussion) HP-pwg meeting, 25 Aug 2022, Thursday 10 AM BNL time

star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: STAR HardProbes PWG

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
  • To: Raghav Kunnawalkam Elayavalli <kunnawalkamraghav AT gmail.com>, STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
  • Cc: Rosi Reed <rosijreed AT lehigh.edu>
  • Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] (LRP discussion) HP-pwg meeting, 25 Aug 2022, Thursday 10 AM BNL time
  • Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2022 10:18:48 +0530

Hello Rosi, Peter, Raghav, and all,

Thank you for this discussion and inputs so far.
Certainly we can discuss more on this topic today.

I would like to point out one thing is that this discuss is not all about including which results or plots in the presentation or slides. We are discussing what are the main physics messages from HF and jet measurements in a larger picture we can draw from STAR published results and ongoing measurements since last LRP, how our STAR BUR can be benefited from it and also future road map and proposal in heavy-ion collisions (QGP/hot-dense/cold QCD matter) can be envisioned.
I think this is what Helen and Lijuan were asking to know from our HP-pwg.
We can discuss more on it.

Regards
Nihar



On 2022-08-24 23:06, Raghav Kunnawalkam Elayavalli via Star-hp-l wrote:
Hi Nihar, all

Thanks for preparing the slides. I was unable to join the discussion
on monday since i was at the vet with my cats most of the morning. I
would point out that there are two programs within STAR on the jet
side that are very prominant and relevant for the larger LRP
community. The first one is on the transport parameters of the QGP and
the other on fundamental QCD and the transition to np-QCD.
For the former - i will argue to include our recent published paper on
the opening angle dependence which is a DOE science highlight (which i
believe Rosi also mentioned here previously)
For the latter - This is more related to a growing area of interest in
using the jet shower to study the non-perturbative nature of particle
production within jets and we have many measurements on this topic
such as the differential substructure from Monika and the
multi-dimensional unfolding from Youqi and also the formation time
measurements which will be used in AuAu in the future. We don’t need
to show everything from here, but i think it is important to showcase
this direction.

Cheers
Raghav

**************************************
First Name - Raghav
Last Name - Kunnawalkam Elayavalli
email - raghav.ke AT vanderbilt.edu
website - https://www.raghavke.me [4]

RHIC/AGS UEC member
Assistant Professor of Physics
Stevenson Center 6410
Physics & Astronomy Department
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN 37235-1807
<he/them>
**************************************

On Aug 24, 2022, at 10:53 AM, Rosi Reed via Star-hp-l
<star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Peter,
I'm surprised that you're surprised given how long a discussion we
had on this result when it was a new preliminary. I completely
agree that the experimentalist should report all of her experimental
biases and assumptions, whether this is done properly or not in all
papers is a discussion for another time. In any case, in heavy-ion
collisions there is always an additional bias that can be attributed
to either the fragmentation and/or the geometry by whatever
hard-process selection criteria that we use, whether this is a
hard-core jet or a leading constituent requirement. The nuclear
modification factor is a particular observable, that the community
largely interprets as a measure of suppression (RAA<1), enhancement
(RAA > 1) or a canceling of various effects (RAA = 1). When you
have different kinematic requirements in the numerator and the
denominator, you construct a variable that can have RAA < 1, even if
we could treat the system as an independent superposition of
nucleon-nucleon collisions. I understand that you indicate this
area on the plots with the "biased" vs "unbiased" labels, however,
my many discussions with people in other experiments and with
theorists has indicated that this isn't appreciated or understood.
As no other experiment is constructing their analysis in this
manner, it makes it very difficult to compare the STAR nuclear
modification results, which will especially be a shame in the era
where we have sPHENIX data. In addition to this more pragmatic
approach, I think it blurs together different physics processes in a
way that makes interpretation of the data difficult. Unfortunately
I need to run to another meeting, so I will end this discussion
here.

Cheers,
Rosi

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 11:25 AM Peter Jacobs <pmjacobs AT lbl.gov>
wrote:

Hi Rosi,

Please see replies below:

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 7:52 AM Rosi Reed <rosijreed AT lehigh.edu>
wrote:

Hi Peter,
I agree that this is an important result! It is somewhat
unfortunate that the final result did not have the leading track
requirement in the reference, which caused this biased vs unbiased
confusion that takes away from the physics message. I would
definitely recommend only including figure 19 which does not show
the unbiased points, since it would be somewhat inappropriate to use
the plots that are in the AN that did not have this bias.

I am surprised by this comment, which I do not think is correct.

It is the experimentalist's responsibility to measure and report
biases. Unfortunately, many heavy ion jet measurements do not do so
- this paper is one of the few exceptions.

In this paper we went into detail about the nature of the bias,
providing a purely data-driven method to identify where it is
negligible. This point is important, because the modeling of bias
adds additional uncertainty to theoretical calculations. In JETSCAPE
we are comparing to the distributions from this STAR measurement,
with the "biased" and "unbiased" regions clearly delineated; see Fig
14 here:

https://inspirehep.net/literature/2062342 [1]

This I think is exactly as it should be - this approach to bias
brings clarity, not confusion.

The forthcoming RAA analysis being carried out by Robert (who will
provide an update at the collab meeting) will improve the first jet
RAA measurement in many aspects, but this approach to the bias will
be carried out in exactly the same way. There is no reason to
change.

There are a number of newer results that should be included too
(Raghav's nice jet structure measurements for example), probably
what would be good for the conveners to do is to make a list of all
papers from the pwg that have been published during this time period
to make sure that we don't forget everything. Once we have that, we
can start formulating a succinct and clean message.

Regards,

Peter

Cheers,
Rosi

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 10:45 AM Peter Jacobs via Star-hp-l
<star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Convenors,

Thanks for the pointer to the slides.

I very well appreciate the need for concision, with only a few key
results highlighted. However, I think that the STAR paper on
inclusive jet RAA also belongs on slide 3 of STARjetLRP.pdf, as one
of the significant STAR jet measurements since the last LRP:

https://inspirehep.net/literature/1798665 [2]

Regards,

Peter

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 4:33 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l
<star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello All,

As you all know, we had meeting—LRP planning for STAR/RHIC—to
discuss
STAR's achievements/contributions since last Long Range
Plan(LRP)-2015
on Monday this week. We also discussed possible STAR experiment
proposals (and their physics) that could be included for upcoming
LRP.

We want to present the same slides at our HP-pwg meeting this week
to
get your inputs and to discuss further on this topic.
Those slides can be found here (Highlights for HP both on the jet
and HF
discussion slides) along with other presentations:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/event/2022/08/22/LRP-planning-STARRHIC

Please join this week to discuss on this important topic.

Thank you
Barbara, Yi, Sooraj, and Nihar

On 2022-08-22 17:51, Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l wrote:
Hello All,

We will have our regular HP-pwg meeting this Thursday (25th Aug)
at 10
AM BNL time. Let us know if you want to present and update your
analysis.

If you want to present or update your analysis at collaboration
meeting, Please let us know.

HP working group weekly meeting info:


https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/pwg/Hard-Probes/Weekly-HP-PWG-meeting

Join ZoomGov Meeting


https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1611419615?pwd=VW1hNm43ZDd5d2EvK2R4aEJsQ2ZNZz09
[3]

Meeting ID: 161 141 9615
Passcode: 744968


Regards,
Barbara, Yi, Sooraj, and Nihar
_______________________________________________
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

--
Peter Jacobs
pmjacobs AT lbl.gov

Nuclear Science Division,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
1 Cyclotron Road,
Berkeley, California,
U.S.A. 94720
Tel. (510)486-5413
Cell: (510) 688-0055

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

--

Rosi Reed
RHIC/AGS UEC member
Associate Professor, Physics Department
Lehigh University
(610)758-3907
16 Memorial Drive East Office 406
Bethlehem, PA 18015
she/her/hers

--
Peter Jacobs
pmjacobs AT lbl.gov

Nuclear Science Division,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
1 Cyclotron Road,
Berkeley, California,
U.S.A. 94720
Tel. (510)486-5413
Cell: (510) 688-0055

--

Rosi Reed
RHIC/AGS UEC member
Associate Professor, Physics Department
Lehigh University
(610)758-3907
16 Memorial Drive East Office 406
Bethlehem, PA 18015
she/her/hers _______________________________________________
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/__https://inspirehep.net/literature/2062342__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!Gipq0tWYua8eVtaFIoPTfkdZtgoNrHeInw1V1RvFrF79PlT7mkVpTTOFWu9ljX4uBRTNDTynuJjg1ObzFZx5AGY5rrAj$
[2] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://inspirehep.net/literature/1798665__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!HQrK3iLzKW2nLhdhLajuW4IgqSUjvezHG9FZ48_WOGvhGIM93munz4MZUyI1Be1RybYYMhF4SLhFEKMIHCXiSB2PNQ$
[3] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1611419615?pwd=VW1hNm43ZDd5d2EvK2R4aEJsQ2ZNZz09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!HQrK3iLzKW2nLhdhLajuW4IgqSUjvezHG9FZ48_WOGvhGIM93munz4MZUyI1Be1RybYYMhF4SLhFEKMIHCUoFAVKiw$
[4] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.raghavke.me__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!CsoP4xITinEy3H-Uii6yNxoIpVZoG1_qWK1KOWIkCNMqx3UUnPLQGUe-Zb9o4G_k2ijDa_Uiok_BSkMVlCXcSPWXsQjtvm-AVw$
_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page