STAR HardProbes PWG

[Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Hello Tong,

I don't have any further comments. I sign off.

Cheers
Nihar

On 2022-10-06 09:28, Tong Liu wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I just posted my latest draft version to drupal. Please take a look.
>
> Tong Liu
> Ph.D. Student '2023
> Physics Dept., Yale University
>
> Tel: 203-435-2130
>
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 5:49 PM Tong Liu <tong.liu AT yale.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Thanks for the comments; please find my responses to some of the
> > points below.
> > I just did a rehearsal at Yale a few hours ago, and I have got some
> > comments there as well. I'll update my slides ASAP once I addressed
> > those comments.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Tong Liu
> > Ph.D. Student '2023
> > Physics Dept., Yale University
> >
> > Tel: 203-435-2130
> >
> > Nihar:
> >
> > 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?
> > I don’t think it’s a good idea, since the updated version is
> > clearly a more correct and accurate one, and that’s the message we
> > want to leave people with. The QM version is what it is out of the
> > box, but physically speaking we clearly should use the current 42 mb
> > simulation, and now that we have the right version I don’t think
> > we should mention the earlier one. That being said, I’d be happy
> > to put something in backup, so that if somebody asks we can have
> > something prepared.
> > Slide14:
> >
> > _ "More input needed in the next week" do you want to update
> > anything?
> >
> > I was planning to, but I don’t think I will be able to. I was
> > planning on another simulation, which was cutting it very close
> > already, then the Yale cluster was down the whole day yesterday;
> > I’m going to leave it till afterwards. This physics message should
> > already suffice.
> >
> > Barbara:
> >
> > - s15: the blue text is not so well visible on the green background.
> >
> > Yeah I’m not very happy about that either… but now that I just
> > did a rehearsal at Yale and I’m over time, I kinda want to lose
> > this slide altogether since it was supposed to be a transition slide
> > between my talk and the other low-pt spectrum talk back at QM.
> >
> > Yi:
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > That’s to stress the point that we are alternating between Ru and
> > Zr collision on a run-by-run bases, instead of running Ru for half
> > the time and then switch to Zr for the remaining half. I’ll make
> > it more clear in the text.
> >
> > p6: Could you please remind me why there is a drop at 7 GeV on both
> > collisions?
> >
> > That’s because the p+p collision was larger than it’s supposed
> > to be at the range. Statistical fluctuations.
> >
> > p8, p9: What is this blue box for?
> >
> > That one is just to guide the eye where I want to temporarily block
> > the low pt region and let people focus on the high pt. It was a
> > solid block until Nihar asked me to make it transparent, but now it
> > looks like I’m trying to highlight it instead of blocking it…
> >
> > p13: Could you please remind me what Y^ch_pT is?
> >
> > Here I treat the synthetic PYTHIA events as real events and
> > calculate its Raa. In the Yale rehearsal people have suggested to
> > take the pT>5GeV part off since it’s in the text anyway
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 1:14 PM Yi Yang via Star-hp-l
> > <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > 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
>  _______________________________________________
> Star-hp-l mailing list
> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l