STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Youqi,

Thank you for preparing this plot in slide 35.
Do you want to include this figure as one panel of Fig2?

Now if I compare Zg of fig -3 and Rg plot on slide 35, it looks like no 
grooming (dM=0) case jets have wider angle and vice versa. Is that 
correct?

I will send email request to Rongrong by tomorrow, I am traveling.

Cheers
Nihar


On 2023-03-10 17:35, Youqi Song wrote:
> Hi Nihar,
>
> In case my other email got lost in the thread for this week's PWG
> meeting, I would like to point you to slide 35 of
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/prelim_request_030923.pdf.
> This might answer your question regarding:
>
> > 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.
>
> Please let us know when you put in the request for PWGC review to
> Rongrong. Thank you!
>
> Best,
> Youqi
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 2:34 PM Youqi Song <youqi.song AT yale.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Nihar,
> >
> > Thanks for the comments. I have updated my slides here:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/star_collab_meeting_030623.pdf.
> > In addition to Raghav's comments, please find my response below:
> >
> > Best,
> > Youqi
> >
> > > Slide 4:
> >
> > > Where is "PYTHIA6 STAR" on left side "Delta M" plot? And same for
> > > Fig.2 right.
> >
> > We think that a comparison with the PYTHIA8 Detroit tune should be
> > sufficient and better since it is a tune that includes newer RHIC
> > data.
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > Please see slide 5 in the updated slides for these.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Raghav answered this in his response to slide 6 question 3: "the
> > early splits are defined via the definition of the formation time in
> > QCD which is inversely prop to angle and energy - taken from the
> > splitting functions." I think the cartoon on slide 16 (of the new
> > version) also helps illustrate this point.
> >
> > > "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"?
> >
> > We think it's possible that after finalizing the systematics, the
> > error bars in the figures would become smaller and not cover some of
> > the MC curves. In any case, the main physics message of this
> > measurement (correlations between dM vs zg and Rg) is drawn from the
> > data themselves, and wouldn't be affected by the comparison with the
> > MC.
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > We don't plan to include the jet M distributions in supplementary
> > material. As for whether to include "M vs Q", I will leave that
> > decision to Helen and Raghav.
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > Like we have mentioned on slide 19 (slide 20 of the new version),
> > "hadronization smears/shifts the distributions, but the correlation
> > with and without hadronization is the same." For example, in the top
> > left figure of slide 20, when we turn off hadronization, in the
> > dashed curves, dM/M decreases with increasing Rg (as we move from
> > blue to green to orange). This is the same trend as the solid curves
> > with hadronization on. Similarly, for the top right figure, the
> > flattening of zg with increasing dM/M is the same trend between the
> > dashed and solid curves.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 1:17 PM Raghav Kunnawalkam Elayavalli via
> > Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Nihar,
> >
> > Please find a few quick answers from the airport to your questions
> > below. I will respond to the rest later today after i land and get
> > to my destination.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Raghav
> >
> > **************************************
> > First Name - Raghav
> > Last Name - Kunnawalkam Elayavalli
> > email - raghav.ke AT vanderbilt.edu
> > website - https://www.raghavke.me  [1]
> >
> > RHIC/AGS UEC member
> > Assistant Professor of Physics
> > Stevenson Center 6410
> > Physics & Astronomy Department
> > Vanderbilt University
> > Nashville, TN 37235-1807
> > <they/them>
> > **************************************
> >
> > On Mar 2, 2023, at 7:07 AM, Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l
> > <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > 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?
> > The quick answer for us is that - theorists are able to calculate
> > ‘a’ as opposed to ‘\delta M’ because a is normalized by the
> > jet pT. this makes the calculation in SCET doable and easier on the
> > theoretical uncertainties as they don’t need to vary the energy
> > scale.
> >
> > Where is "PYTHIA6 STAR" on left side "Delta M" plot? And same for
> > Fig.2 right.
> > We can certainly add it to the plots as we have done in the past.
> > Given that we have the pythia 8 detroit tune here, it more or less
> > covers the variation.
> >
> > 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.
> > from a purely conceptual basis - we know that the jet mass
> > distinguishes q vs g jets, we also know that groomed mass
> > distinguishes q vs g less but we can assume that the discriminative
> > power is probably less. Therefore, delta-m, i would naively assume
> > has a much weaker ability to distinguish between q vs g jets. In our
> > sample of jets, the q vs g fraction steadily increases from about
> > 60-40 for the 20ish GeV jets. so increasing the jet pT does change
> >
> > Can we add some PYTHIA simulation for the q vs g jet for these
> > plots?
> > I think we had truth level quark and gluon jet curves for the m vs
> > charge back during the preliminary discussion. Based on the
> > discussion i mentioned above, we can produce this curve but i hope
> > it doesnt hold up the forward progress on the paper.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > So you want to see the other axis projection on figure 2 then? it is
> > possible sure but isnt the information already available in the dM/M
> > vs Rg?
> >
> > 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)
> > we have analyzed the other pT bins and maybe we can show it in the
> > appendix.
> >
> > 3. "Suggests how the amount of initial wide and soft emission …"
> > ->How do we know these are "wide angle" emission?
> > this is also an answer for the question below - the early splits are
> > defined via the definition of the formation time in QCD which is
> > inversely prop to angle and energy - taken from the splitting
> > functions.
> >
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.raghavke.me__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!FlvPnXOKF9djgg4Y2Q21p12n8HFvVB_ADtELu-y7DrWGHVMqt12ZRew1QIWVBEUA3A551BZZAZ83j2OLynIulsXRMHlYRstbbQ$