STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hello Youqi,

As I mentioned we will discuss with Rongrong to find a nearest date for 
PWGC review.

In the mean time, Please find my comments below on these nice results.


SLide-4:

What is the extra information we get from the right side plot of 
obeservable "a"? Is not that the left plot "Delta M" is sufficient to 
measure Collinear drop observables?

Where is "PYTHIA6 STAR" on left side "Delta M" plot? And same for Fig.2 
right.

What is "Delta_M" distribution for q vs g jet for this collinear drop 
jet measurement?
Can we say something here on this? It would be an important information.

Can we add some PYTHIA simulation for the q vs g jet for these plots?


Slide-6:

1. Do you have a plot to show for different "Delta_M/M" what is the 
distribution of "Rg"?
You could add another panel plot with Fig.3 to show Rg distribution 
(Similar to Zg distribution).

It is important to show for different "Delta_M/M" regions later 
splitting dominates by showing Rg distribution in this measurement.

2. "Similar trend for higher pT range" ->Where do you get this 
conclusion? There is only one pT range 20-30 GeV/c is shown. (Same for 
Slide-5)
3. "Suggests how the amount of initial wide and soft emission …" ->How 
do we know these are "wide angle" emission?


Slide07
"	"Observed an anti-correlation between the amount of early-stage 
radiation and the angular scale of a later-stage splitting, where a 
large groomed jet radius indicates small or no branching prior to the 
SoftDrop splitting "
This statement is not clear what exactly it says.

I think this conclusion is coming from the statement (Slide-5) of "the 
dM/M distributions anti-correlated with Rg"
Then it is not clear how do we know these are "early-stage radiation" 
and "later-stage splitting".
More explanation or better paraphrase is needed to make it clear.


"Agreement/disagreement with MC event generators (pending finalizing 
systematic uncertainties)" -> Figures 1,2, and 3 show that MC event 
generators are in agreement with the data. Is not that?
Then why "/disagreement"?

Slide-11

Are we going to include Jet M distribution as one of supplementary 
figures?
If yes, then it is not clear why do we need this figure as supplement 
material? Particularly "M vs Q".
It sounds like a bit arbitrary.
Could you explain here?


Slide-18,19:

It shows "hadronization" has biggest effect on the collinear drop.
Then how reliable is it to say about early and later splitting as we 
mention in Slide 6-7?


Thank you
Nihar

On 2023-03-02 03:19, Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Hello Youqi,
>
> Thank you for this paper proposal.
> Yes, results and the physics conclusions look good to me.
> We can move forward for the PWGC review and we will discuss with
> Rongrong to find a date.
>
> Cheers
> Nihar
>
>
> On 2023-03-01 21:40, Youqi Song via Star-hp-l wrote:
> > Hi conveners,
> >
> > Here are the slides for the presentation yesterday where we updated
> > the paper proposal
> > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/star_collab_meeting_022823_1.pdf.
> > We think we are ready to move to PWGC review and Barbara is also happy
> > with us moving forward. Please let us know if you have any questions
> > or comments. Thank you!
> >
> > Best,
> > Youqi, Raghav and Helen
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 1:18 PM Youqi Song <youqi.song AT yale.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi HP conveners,
> > >
> > > I would like to follow up on the paper proposal I presented at our
> > > PWG meeting last week. I have updated my slides here
> > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/paper_proposal_021023.pdf
> > > based on the feedback I got from the meeting:
> > >
> > > Slide 12 - I've made the conclusions in a bullet point form.
> > > Hopefully this highlights our physics messages more crisply.
> > >
> > > Slide 17 - I included an example of a large dM jet from a PYTHIA
> > > event.
> > >
> > > As mentioned last week, we have been talking to some theorists who
> > > agreed to provide some predictions for the collinear jet mass. I am
> > > also finalizing the systematic uncertainties so that we can arrive
> > > at a more concrete comparison with the MC generators.
> > >
> > > We would like to know if this analysis could be pushed to PWGC
> > > review soon or if there is anything else that people would like us
> > > to prepare for. Please let us know if you have any questions or
> > > comments. Thanks!
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Youqi
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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