STAR HardProbes PWG

[Rachael Botsford <rab420 AT lehigh.edu>]

Hi all,

Thank you for all the suggestions.  I have uploaded a new version.

Thanks,

Rachael

On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 11:32 AM Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Rachael,

Thanks a lot for the updated version. Some follow-up comments and suggestions for your consideration. 

 - Title page: please refer to other's slides for the DOE loge, for example: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/dnp_102922_v3.pdf

                    You might want to put your institute below your name

 - p2: Should add a bullet for conclusion and future work (or summary) 

 - p3: the quality of the plot is still bad

         I agree with Sooraj that the 0.999998 c probably is not important here (but it is fine to put it here)

 - p5: the reference should just list the journal, volume, issue, and year (don't need the hyperlink). 

 - p12: Are you using TOF information for muon PID? If not, please put this slide to the backup. 

 - p13: Remove "Crystal Ball collaboration", and add the fit function of your combinatorial background. 

Cheers,

Yi

 

On Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 11:22 PM Rachael Botsford <rab420 AT lehigh.edu> wrote:

Hi all,

I have uploaded a new version.  I have not been able to address every comment, but I am working on it.

Thanks,

Rachael

On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 6:11 AM Barbara Trzeciak via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Rachael,

please find below additional comments from my side.

- s7: v z,dif (| vz,dif | < 6) -> | vz,dif | < 6

- s8: Number of TPC hits used in reconstruction -> Number of TPC hits used in track reconstruction

- s8: MTD matching ensures a given track is the same in the TPC and MTD -> (suggestion) MTD matching ensures a given track has MTD information

- s9: you mention here a DCA cut, but it's not the same DCA cut as on the previous slide. Should be explained to avoid confusing the audience. 

- s10,11: you don't mention here if you apply any selections on the nSigmaPi and 1/beta, so it's not clear how you do PID here. 

- s11: 1/beta curves indicate successful identification of particles - this is not clear to me. I guess you want to say that the curves indicate expected values for different particle species ?

- s12: please improve the quality of the inv. mass plot and enlarge the lower figure.

- s12: you don't need reference for a STAR preliminary result

- s13:  Background of like-sign pairs subtracted from unlike-sign pairs - however on the plot the like-sign is not subtracted. You fit J/psi signal with the Crystall Ball function, but what do you use for the bkg. fit ? The fitting procedure is not clear to me from this slide. 

Cheers,

Barbara

On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 11:40 AM Sooraj Radhakrishnan via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Rachael,

   Thanks for the updated version and taking into account the comments on the previous version. Please find some further comments from me below

S3: Heavy-ion collisions dont go upto 510 GeV/c. Change to collides beams of heavy-ions and protons, up. to a center of mass energy of 510 GeV for p + p collisions. The velocity value is not very useful here and think can be dropped

S3: intersections --> interaction points

S8: Second sub-bullet - Remove ': distance between the particle centers during collision'

S12: Why the title is 'invariant mass ...'?

S12: Why not have this slide after S4? Goes better with your motivation and introduction

S13: Remove (Crystal Ball Collaboration), you can explain if someone asks. Also it is quite well understood 

thanks

Sooraj  

 

On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 8:59 AM Yi Yang via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Rachael,

Thanks a lot for the updated version. I have some comments and suggestions on v3 for your consideration. 

 - General: some of the pages have lots of room on the left, probably you can utilize/rearrange them.

 - Title page: please put the DOE logo (you can check other people's slides) 

 - p3: The quality of the plot is not good, is it possible to find another one with better quality?

          I don't think the heavy-ion beams can be up to 510 GeV, this is the proton+proton beam   --> I would suggest to change collides beams of heavy ions to "Collides beams of protons" 

         Second bullet: I don't think "can collide at six interactions" is that important, you might mention how many species of particle/ions can be collided and at what energies. You should also mention that RHIC is the only polarized proton beam in the world so far. 

  - p4: It might be good to add some reviews of the current understanding of quarkonium production, especially it would be good to mention the published 2012 pp 200 results and elaborate a bit what we can learn from 500 GeV (more statistics, for example). 

  - p5: You can make the STAR detector a bit larger since you have plenty of room on this page. 

  - p8: The title should be "Charged particle reconstruction using TPC"

           Move the last bullet to the next page since you will mention MTD there

  - p9: The title should be "Muon identification using MTD"

           It would be good to show the distributions of dTOF, dz, dy.

  - p11: I don't think we use TOF to identify muons, we only use dTOF. 

  - p12: You can use the attached plot (I will update the preliminary page soon). 

            This page should move to the motivation. 

  - p13: What is "crystal ball collaboration"? 

  - p14: The last bullet is a bit redundant. It would be good to mention what your future plan/next steps are (for example, obtain the invariant yield as a function of multiplicity, efficiency correction, systematic...) . 

Cheers,

Yi

On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 5:05 AM Rachael Botsford via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi all,

I have uploaded a new draft.

Thanks,

Rachael

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 9:33 AM Rosi Reed via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Rachael,

I have some additional comments on your slides.

Slide 3: 99.995c -> 0.999998c I believe for 510 GeV, which is your collision energy.

Slide 4: Please use the newer version of this picture that shows the EPD (I believe Tristan has a copy).

Slide 5: At 510 GeV -> at center of mass energy of 510 GeV or sqrt(S_NN) = 510 GeV

I think it makes more sense to switch slide 4 and 5, so that you talk about what you want to measure, then discuss STAR and the specifics of your analysis.

Slide 6: Note that the VPD difference cut removes pile-up

Slide 7: Please move the legend so it's not overlapping the edge of the plot.  I think you need better descriptors for the 3 distributions in the legend.  Let's discuss this during group meeting today.

Slide 8: I agree with the previous comments that this is too busy.  I think it would be nice to split it into 2 slides, so that you can discuss the MTD a little more, as this is the main detector you will be using.  (At least most of your audience will have heard of how the TPC works since every STAR analysis uses it.)  I know you put in the details based on my earlier comments - these are important but I think the MTD matching needs some cartoon to help your audience understand, even if it a block diagram in powerpoint.

I think you're missing a little bit of the story so far - perhaps we  can remove slide 6 since it doesn't really explain a critical detail for your analysis and use that to discuss the methodology a little bit. 

Slide 9: Mention which tof cuts you'll use

Slide 10: Probably you should mention the QM2019 results from Chan-Jui Feng ( https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/files/QM19poster_chanjui_v9.pdf) since they're from 2017.  Actually, I think you're showing the preliminary and the final from the same data?  Let's perhaps remove the left plot and put something from Chan-Jui here. 

Slide 11: Describe how you fit more precisely.  Also, I don't think I would agree that the purple is the combinatorial background, that should be represented by the yellow.  The purple really contains some more physics processes like the Drell-Yan - if there weren't anything like that, then the amplitudes of your like and unlike sign distributions would be the same outside of the J/psi invariant mass.

Actually, can you have this plot go out to 3.8 GeV?  I can see what seems to be the small hint of the psi' there on the edge, we shouldn't cut it out.

I think a plot of the multiplicity since this is what you'll be using would be useful. 

Cheers,

Rosi

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 8:40 AM Barbara Trzeciak via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Rachael,

please find below my comment on your nice slides.

- s5: for physics motivation, I would suggest adding here some existing results on J/psi production vs multiplicity.

- s5: add also information that you measure J/psi via the dimuon decay 

- s8: it's quite busy, try to reduce the text or I would also suggest to move: "Particle identification (PID) cuts on ∆TOF, DCA, ∆z, ∆y∗q, and mass applied" and the sub-bullets to a separate slide. You mention these requirements and the MTD matching which are important for your muon identification - I think they deserve more explanation (even than the nSigmaPion) to people and maybe you can add some plots. I'm missing information related to MTD (you could also consider describing more the detector itself). 

- s10: looks that you're still missing text here

- s11: Add information how you determine the background

- s12: through the invariant mass of the decay -> through the invariant mass of the decayed muons

Cheers,

Barbara

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 4:10 PM Sooraj Radhakrishnan via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Rachael,

    These are nice slides. Please find a few comments from me below. I sign off with them implemented

S4: Figure overlaps test on left

S5, 2nd bullet: Shouldnt this be multiplicity dependence of quarkonia yields?

S5: Using data from p + p collisions 

S7: TPC clusters --> TPC hits

S7: Remove 'applied to blue and teal nHitsFit, nHitsDedx,and nHitsRatio'

S7: On the plot change labels to match text, cuts --> track quality cuts, matching --> MTD matching

S7: Last bullet: Instead of current one better to briefly describe what MTD matching means

S8: Is the DeltaTOF here from MTD? Better to indicate that

S9: Do you need both slides 9 and 10? Doesnt S10 suffice?

S11: using crystal ball function for the mass peak

S11: Do you exclude the Psi(2S) mass region when fitting?

S12: QA is more a STAR lingo. Also what do you mean pT spectra allows to identify muon candidates? Better to summarize which detecctors/quantities have been used in muon identification

S13: I dont think for STAR talks we give personal acknowledgements to STAR Collaborators for their contribution to the talk/results

thanks

Sooraj 

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 10:33 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Rachael,

Please find my comments on your nice presentation slides.
With these implemented I sign off.

Slide5: "       Using p + p at 510 GeV from 2017 " -> "Using p + p at
$sqrt($s$)=510 GeV from 2017 data taking"
Slide6:  please mention vx, vy, and vr; Include dataset information in
plot
Slide7:Include dataset information in plot
Slide8: Include dataset information in plot;
Slide9: Include dataset information in plot

Cheers
Nihar

On 2022-10-15 01:47, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>
> Rachael  Botsford (rab420 AT lehigh.edu) has submitted a material for a
> review,
> please have a look:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/61343
>
> Deadline: 2022-10-27
> ---
> 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

--

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

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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

--

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

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