STAR HardProbes PWG

[Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>]

Hi Tong,

Thanks a lot for the very nice slides. I have some minor comments/suggestions for your consideration. 

p3: the RAA formula, is it possible to let "RAA" to be in the same line with the rest? 

p5: Could you please tell me why there are many repeated lines for Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions on the right plot? What does that mean, just for my own education?

p6: Could you please remind me why there is a drop at 7 GeV on both collisions? 

p8, p9: What is this blue box for?  

p13: Could you please remind me what Y^ch_pT is? 

p15: The last bullet in blue is a bit difficult to read, is it possible to change to another color? 

 

Cheers,

Yi

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 10:32 PM Barbara Trzeciak via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Tong, 

very nice slides, please find my additional comments below. WIth these addressed I sign off.

Cheers,

Barbara

- s6: if p+p uncertainties are not preliminary, please add references (we often do this on the plot itself  e.g."pp uncertainty, PRL 91, 172302 (2003)")

- s11-13: somewhere there you should explain what is "HF-PYTHIA N_hard" and "HF-PYTHIA Y_pT^ch > 5 GeV/c" (what's the difference between them).

- s14: same question as Nihar, are you still planning on adding something here ? I would suggest not to add too much of the last moment studies.

- s15: the blue text is not so well visible on the green background.

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 2:31 PM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Tong,

As discussed yesterday, probably we need to be careful not to change
again these Model calculations in our preliminary plots. So I would
suggest crosschecking and confirming again from your side on this model
calculation to show at HQ2022.

Besides, I have the following comments on your last updated presentation
slides (_1003.pdf).

Slide11:
NN -> Nucleon-Nucleon (NN)
What is b_NN? You need to describe it.

Slide13:
I think it would be good if you could put some texts mentioning the
reason for the shrinking of the uncertainty band compared to QM2022 and
also results up to smaller <Npart>. What do you think?

Slide14:
_ what is "nMPI"? Do you need to mention it somewhere?
_ "More input needed in the next week" do you want to update anything?


Thank you
Nihar





On 2022-10-04 06:11, Tong Liu wrote:
> HI Nihar,
>
> I uploaded a new version of the slides, please take a look. As for the
> pt range in previous results, I decided to do some "subtraction"
> instead of "addition" by removing the word "isobar" from the text on
> figure, so that it looks more like I'm referring to everyone. Please
> let me know what you think about it. Also I'll try to push on the
> pythia MPI side, but I'm not very sure I'll be able to get anywhere
> significant beyond where I am now. Let's assume this is the message we
> are going to give, and I'll let you know if I dig up something.
>
> Tong Liu
> Ph.D. Student '2023
> Physics Dept., Yale University
>
> Tel: 203-435-2130
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 9:07 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tong,
>>
>> Please find my reply inline.
>> And looking forward to seeing your updated presentation slides.
>>
>> On 2022-10-02 07:43, Tong Liu wrote:
>>> Hi Nihar,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your comments. Please find my responses below-- those
>> not
>>> mentioned are applied to my slides already. However I'd like to
>> take
>>> until Sunday night and hopefully make some more changes to them
>> before
>>> uploading again, since we already have a lot to discuss here.
>>>
>>> Title: good catch; I meant “high-pt”. One of the worst places
>> to
>>> have a typo :p
>>> Slide#3:
>>>
>>> _Do you want to say something about right side plots? Any link to
>> your
>>>
>>> analysis…please point out that.
>>> Here it’s just an introduction to high pt hadron as a proxy to
>> jet
>>> quenching effect. The plot I used is the Au+Au high-pt hadron Raa,
>>> which is going to be used later as well; in the text I was really
>>> trying to be general and not talk about any specific measurement,
>> but
>>> I might talk about it orally. If you think it’s too much though
>> I
>>> can take it off; but I’d say let’s wait till a first
>> rehearsal.
>>
>> OK. that's fine.
>>
>>> Also it might be a good idea to put this slide right after the
>> title
>>> slide?
>>> Slide#4:
>>>
>>> STAR TPC eta acceptance is |eta| < 1.4 (without iTPC)
>>>
>>> What acceptance you are quoting here?
>>> I'm pretty sure it's |eta|<1… Please see slide 4 in
>>>
>>
> https://indico.cern.ch/event/689846/contributions/2947105/attachments/1635225/2608617/Yichang-ChiYang.pdf
>>> [1]
>>> Slide#6
>>>
>>> _Can you please remind me where do you get this "p+p uncertainty"?
>>>
>>> That comes from this paper:STAR Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 172302 (2003)
>>> Slide#10:
>>>
>>> It is important to mention for Au+Au, d+Au, and Cu+Cu, what pT
>> ranges
>>>
>>> were used?
>>>
>>> It’s also using 5.1-10 GeV, same as isobar. The statement at the
>>> bottom of the graph was meant for all measurements, but apparently
>> it
>>> was not clear enough. Any suggestions?
>>
>> I would add one bullet mentioning this.
>>
>>> Slide#12:
>>>
>>> _ you have now two models: I) HG-PYTHIA QM2022 preliminary and II)
>> new
>>>
>>> results that you labeled as "X+X N_hard"
>>>
>>> AFAIK, the difference between I) and II) is due to choice of
>> N_hard
>>> and
>>>
>>> N_part . Is not that?
>>>
>>> But from your labels it seems for I) you used pT>5 GeV, and for
>> II)
>>>
>>> N_hard is used but all pT range.
>>>
>>> Is that true?
>>> _ Why your uncertainty band for I) QM2022 preliminary results has
>> been
>>>
>>> changed? It looks wider band in your preliminary results.
>>> OK let me explain further here… what the HG-PYTHIA model does
>> is, it
>>> generates a Glauber-level collision, throw a Poisson dice and
>>> determine how many hard collisions each NN collision has (Nhard).
>> Then
>>> it goes to PYTHIA and ask for a p+p collision with nMPI=Nhard
>> (yeah
>>> that part I don’t understand yet either); then all the tracks
>> from
>>> all the PYTHIA collisions are stacked together to be the synthetic
>>> event. Here in the plot, both options categorized events into
>>> centralities with the “refmult” of this synthetic event, but
>> the
>>> “benchmark values” are calculated in different ways: in the
>>> “Nhard” option, the average Nhard in each centrality class is
>>> compared to <Nhard> of pp collisions, while in the “Y_ch”
>> option,
>>> the invariant yield of 5 GeV+ tracks is used (<Ncoll> scaling is
>>> applied in both cases, of course). I didn’t use any <N_part> in
>> this
>>> baseline beyond the x axis.
>>> As for the change to QM prelim, that one  was easy: I squeezed
>> much
>>> larger statistics out of the simulation. In fact this one is still
>>> statistical error only, and I’ll try to get a crude systematics
>> in
>>> the next week.
>>
>> Ok, I got it some extent now.
>>
>> Thank you
>> Nihar
>>>
>>> Slide#14:
>>>
>>> Do you have associated systematic uncertainty for <Ncoll> and
>> <Npart>
>>>
>>> scaled?
>>>
>>> The systematic uncertainty assigned to <Ncoll> and <Npart> by the
>>> centrality group is VERY small, and I suspect they are correlated
>>> between species, so they also largely cancel out.
>>>
>>> Tong Liu
>>> Ph.D. Student '2023
>>> Physics Dept., Yale University
>>>
>>> Tel: 203-435-2130
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 3:03 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l
>>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Tong,
>>>>
>>>> Please find my comments below  on your nice presentation slides.
>>>>
>>>> Slide#1:
>>>> Title: System size dependence of pT hadron yield modification…"
>>>> ->
>>>> "System size dependence of hadron yield suppression…" or
>> something
>>>> like
>>>> that
>>>> Here, "pT hadron yield modification" sounds awkward.
>>>>
>>>> Slide#3:
>>>> _Title: "…QGP probe" -> "…QGP Probe"
>>>> _"..lose energy to QGP" -> "… lose energy in QGP"
>>>> _"…RAA: comparison to p+p collisions" -> not quite right?
>> Define
>>>> RAA
>>>> using Au+Au and nuclear thickness function..
>>>> It is important for your previous bullet for Npart and Ncoll
>>>> _Do you want to say something about right side plots? Any link to
>>>> your
>>>> analysis…please point out that.
>>>>
>>>> Slide#4:
>>>> STAR TPC eta acceptance is |eta| < 1.4 (without iTPC)
>>>> What acceptance you are quoting here?
>>>>
>>>> Slide#6
>>>> _Can you please remind me where do you get this "p+p
>> uncertainty"?
>>>>
>>>> Slide#8-9
>>>> I would make that blue box transparent such that the data points
>> can
>>>> be
>>>> visible behind.
>>>>
>>>> Slide#10:
>>>> It is important to mention for Au+Au, d+Au, and Cu+Cu, what pT
>>>> ranges
>>>> were used?
>>>>
>>>> Slide#12:
>>>>
>>>> _ you have now two models: I) HG-PYTHIA QM2022 preliminary and
>> II)
>>>> new
>>>> results that you labeled as "X+X N_hard"
>>>> AFAIK, the difference between I) and II) is due to choice of
>> N_hard
>>>> and
>>>> N_part . Is not that?
>>>> But from your labels it seems for I) you used pT>5 GeV, and for
>> II)
>>>> N_hard is used but all pT range.
>>>> Is that true?
>>>>
>>>> _ Why your uncertainty band for I) QM2022 preliminary results has
>>>> been
>>>> changed? It looks wider band in your preliminary results.
>>>>
>>>> Slide#14:
>>>> Do you have associated systematic uncertainty for <Ncoll> and
>>>> <Npart>
>>>> scaled?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Nihar
>>>>
>>>> On 2022-09-29 09:54, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>>>> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>>>>
>>>>> Tong Liu (tong.liu AT yale.edu) has submitted a material for a
>>>> review,
>>>>> please
>>>>> have a look:
>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/61208
>>>>>
>>>>> Deadline: 2022-10-11
>>>>> ---
>>>>> 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
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Star-hp-l mailing list
>>>> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
>>>
>>>
>>> Links:
>>> ------
>>> [1]
>>>
>>
> https://indico.cern.ch/event/689846/contributions/2947105/attachments/1635225/2608617/Yichang-ChiYang.pdf
_______________________________________________
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